Johnson v. State
Decision Date | 10 May 1966 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 18 |
Citation | 187 So.2d 281,43 Ala.App. 224 |
Parties | Jessie JOHNSON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
J. D. Carroll, Jr., Huntsville, for appellant.
Richmond M. Flowrs, Atty. Gen., and John C. Tyson, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of an assault with intent to murder his former wife. His punishment was fixed at five years in the penitentiary.
This is a second appeal in this case. Johnson v. State, 42 Ala.App. 511, 169 So.2d 773. The facts were fully set out in the opinion on the first appeal and are adopted as the facts of this case.
Defendant's pleas were not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. At the conclusion of the testimony the state moved to exclude the evidence on the plea of insanity. The court charged the jury:
Defense counsel reserved an exception to the court's instruction as follows:
In Walker v. State, 269 Ala. 555, 114 So.2d 402, the court said:
See also Knight v. State, 273 Ala. 480, 142 So.2d 899.
It is well settled that insanity which will excuse a crime must be the result of a disease of the brain. Emotional insanity or temporary mania, usually due to causes such as intoxication, not associated with disease of the mind does not constitute insanity. Wilkes v. State, 215 Ala. 428, 110 So. 908; Manning v. State, 217 Ala. 357, 116 So. 360; Grant v. State. 250 Ala. 164, 33 So.2d 466; Lakey v. State, 258 Ala. 116, 61 So.2d 117; Barbour v. State, 262 Ala. 297, 78 So.2d 328.
Defendant's brother testified defendant just prior to and after the divorce acted a little differently. He cried on some occasions and seemed to be dazed or in a deep study and was very nervous. He didn't see him often until after the divorce and the only time he talked with him after the divorce was granted was the morning of July 15th. He came to the witness' home and drank coffee. On cross examination witness said defendant was intoxicated on that occasion. He stayed about two hours, crying and talking.
This was the only evidence that in any way tended to establish the plea of insanity. We are of opinion it was not sufficient to warrant the submission of the issue of insanity to the jury. Rowe v. State, 243 Ala. 618, 11 So.2d 749.
Defendant testified after he saw his former wife at the parking lot he bought a pint of whiskey and sat in his car and drank it. He bought another pint and took one drink out of it before going to his brother's house. From there he went to his father's home and then to the trailer where he was living and dressed for work. He remembered nothing else clearly until he was taken to the police station. He did not remember firing the gun.
'The Court may state to the jury the law of the case, and may also state the evidence when the same is disputed, but shall not charge upon the effect of the testimony, unless required to do so by one of the parties.' Title 7, Sec. 270, Code of Alabama 1940.
'And if the evidence is in dispute, or affords conflicting inferences, it is reversible error for the court to charge on the effect of the evidence in the oral charge.' Cole v. State, 16 Ala.App. 55, 75 So. 261.
The evidence as to defendant's shooting of his former wife was not in conflict and afforded no conflicting inferences. There was no element of self defense involved and no question as to who brought on the difficulty. The details of defendant's marital problems were not material to his defense under his plea of not guilty. The court's action in excluding this testimony, if error, was error without injury. Supreme Court Rule 45.
The state's objections were sustained to the following questions asked Mrs. Johnson, the assaulted party, on cross examination:
These questions called for conclusions of the witness and objections were properly sustained. Counsel insists this testimony was 'vital as a predicate to the proof of insanity.' A witness may testify that a person appeared normal, 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 871(2), pp. 433--434, State v. Boyd, 109 Kan. 99, 197 P. 864, but it is apparent here that the inquiry sought to show the abnormal rather than the normal state of defendant's mind. 'Non-expert witnesses, to give an opinion as to insanity of a party, must first state the facts claimed to show or indicate an abnormal condition of the mind; * * *.' George v. State, 240 Ala. 632, 200 So. 602.
Officer Travis testified he was called to the Crystal Drug Store after the shooting, and that he took the defendant to the police station. He was asked, 'Did you smell any intoxicants on or about his person?' The witness answered, 'I don't remember.'
On cross examination the following transpired:
'Q. Just to refresh your recollection, Mr. Travis, you testified in the last trial, did you not?
'A. I believe I did.
'Q. The question was, 'I will ask you if at that time you smelled alcoholic beverages on or about the person of Jessie Johnson?' Your answer was, 'Yes, I did.' Would that be correct, in that it is a lot closer, or was a lot closer then than it is today?
Later in the trial the defendant offered in evidence, 'The statement by officer Travis on the previous trial when the question was asked to (sic) him: I will ask you if at that time you smelled intoxicating beverages on or about the person of Jessie Johnson?' And his answer was: 'Yes, I did.' That is for the purpose of impeachment of Officer Travis's testimony, * * *.' The State objected and the court sustained the objection.
Counsel argues in brief that the court erred in disallowing defendant, 'the right to impeach Officer Travis * * * which was a material fact and part of the defense, that the defendant was highly intoxicated at the time of the shooting and could not form a specific intent whereby he would be guilty of assault with intent to murder under Alabama Law.'
Where a witness denies making contradictory statements, or states that he does not remember whether he testified to a certain fact on a former trial, the certified transcript of the testimony taken on the former trial may be introduced for the purpose of impeachment. Gilchrist v. State, 19 Ala.App. 16, 95 So. 197, certiorari denied In re Gilchrist, 208 Ala. 690, 95 So. 200.
If the statement made at the former trial is to be introduced in evidence to impeach the witness, it must first be shown to the witness in order to allow him to refresh his memory and to explain any inconsistency. Parker v. State, 266 Ala. 63, 94 So.2d 209.
The writing used by the defendant here is not before us. It is not clear whether it was prior sworn testimony of the witness. It is not clear from the record that the former statement was ever shown to the witness.
In Brown v. State, 39 Ala.App. 149, 96 So.2d 197, Judge Cates wrote:
'On a plea of not guilty to crimes * * * which require a special intent, e.g., malice or animus furandi, the law of Alabama allows the jury to consider evidence of a defendant's drunkenness--not for the purpose of acquitting him altogether--but for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not his condition has rendered him at the time of the act capable of harboring such special intent.' (Citation of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Young v. State
...a tittle, glimmer or thread, tending to show that appellant had a diseased mind within the purview of Parsons."); Johnson v. State, 43 Ala.App. 224, 227, 187 So.2d 281 (1966) (Evidence that Johnson acted a little differently just prior to and after his divorce, that he seemed dazed or in a ......
-
Hooks v. State, 3 Div. 282
...due to causes such as intoxication, not associated with disease of the mind, does not constitute insanity.' Johnson v. State, 43 Ala.App. 224, 226, 187 So.2d 281 (1966). See also Beasley, supra; State v. Bullock, 13 Ala. 413 (1848). '(I)nsane conduct or mania resulting merely from present i......
-
Bui v. State, 3 Div. 557
...insanity. Brackin v. State, 417 So.2d 602 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); McKinnon v. State, 405 So.2d 78 (Ala.Cr.App.1981); Johnson v. State, 43 Ala.App. 224, 187 So.2d 281 (1966). "[W]here one does not act under the duress of a diseased mind, or insane delusion, but from motives of anger, revenge or o......
-
Neelley v. State
...Emotional insanity or temporary mania, not associated with a disease of the mind, does not constitute insanity. Johnson v. State, 43 Ala.App. 224, 187 So.2d 281 (1966). "In the present case, there was no evidence that appellant suffered from a 'mental disease or defect.' " 405 So.2d at 80-8......