Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 06 July 1910 |
| Citation | 53 So. 769,169 Ala. 10 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1910.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bibb County; B. M. Miller, Judge.
Jack Johnson was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Trick Cottingham was the man alleged to have been killed. Dr Bunting testified as to the character and nature of the wound, and that he told the deceased that night that he was going to die from the effect of the wound, and that the deceased said to him that he knew he was going to die from the wound, and proceeded to make the statement referred to in the opinion. The defendant objected to the statement, because proper predicate had not been laid. The defendant also objected to the testimony of Lottie Cottingham, because at the time of his death she was the wife of Trick Cottingham.
The following charges were refused to the defendant: (1) "The court charges the jury that if you have a reasonable doubt in your mind, arising out of the evidence as to whether the defendant is sane or insane, then it is your duty to acquit him." (2) "The court charges the jury that you cannot acquit him, if you have a reasonable doubt as to his insanity, arising out of his own evidence."
Henry P. White and S.D. Logan, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree. The predicate for admitting testimony of the dying declarations of Trick Cottingham was sufficient, and there was no error in admitting said declarations.
There is no law which renders the widow of a murdered man incompetent to testify in regard to the circumstances of his death. Hence there was no error in admitting the testimony of Lottie Cottingham.
There was no prejudicial error in admitting testimony of the ages of the children, who were lying on the floor with their father, at or immediately before the shooting, as it was a part of the res gestæ, describing the situation at the time of the shooting. At any rate, it was harmless to the defendant.
There was no error in overruling the objection to the question to Oscar Curry, "What did Jack say?" referring to the defendant, just before the shooting, as said question did not necessarily call for illegal testimony, and the answer to the question could not work any prejudice to the defendant.
There was no error in the refusal to give charge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. State
...Pilley v. State, 247 Ala. 523, 528, 25 So.2d 57 (1946); Johnson v. State, 247 Ala. 271, 275, 24 So.2d 17 (1946); Johnson v. State, 169 Ala. 10, 12, 53 So. 769 (1910); Connell v. State, 56 Ala.App. 43, 51-52, 318 So.2d 782, reversed on other grounds, 294 Ala. 477, 318 So.2d 710 (1974); Smith......
-
Flowers v. State
...Pilley v. State, 247 Ala. 523, 528, 25 So.2d 57 (1946); Johnson v. State, 247 Ala. 271, 275, 24 So.2d 17 (194[5]); Johnson v. State, 169 Ala. 10, 12, 53 So. 769 (1910); Connell v. State, 56 Ala.App. 43, 51-52, 318 So.2d 782, reversed on grounds, 294 Ala. 477, 318 So.2d 710 (1974); Smith v. ......
-
Hooks v. State, 3 Div. 282
...Pilley v. State, 247 Ala. 523, 528, 25 So.2d 57 (1946); Johnson v. State, 247 Ala. 271, 275, 24 So.2d 17 (1946); Johnson v. State, 169 Ala. 10, 12, 53 So. 769 (1910); Connell v. State, 56 Ala.App. 43, 51-52, 318 So.2d 782, reversed on other grounds, 294 Ala. 477, 318 So.2d 710 (1974); Smith......
-
Garrett v. State
...v. State, 139 Ala. 56, 35 So. 1011; Logan v. State, 149 Ala. 11, 43 So. 10; McEwen v. State, 152 Ala. 38, 44 So. 619; Johnson v. State, 169 Ala. 10, 53 So. 769; Gibson v. State, 193 Ala. 12, 69 So. Carmichael v. State, 197 Ala. 185, 72 So. 405; Shikles v. State, 31 Ala.App. 423, 18 So.2d 41......