Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 06 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 678 |
| Citation | 85 So. 830,17 Ala.App. 394 |
| Parties | JONES v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; C.P. Almon, Judge.
Dallas Jones was convicted of murder in the second degree and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Mitchell & Hughston, of Florence, for appellant.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Under the evidence, as disclosed by this record, the defendant was not entitled to the general affirmative charge requested in writing, and there was no error in the ruling of the court in refusing this charge.
The main and determining question on this appeal is whether the court erred in admitting evidence as to the particulars of a former difficulty which occurred between the deceased and the defendant. The only possible theory upon which the particulars of the former difficulty was admitted is that they were a part of the res gestae. In a case of this character, it is always permissible to show, as a part of the res gestae, all that transpired at the time of the killing and all which occurred prior thereto leading up to and explanatory of the tragedy.
Acts or declarations are admissible as a part of the res gestae if they are substantially contemporaneous with the main fact under consideration, and so closely connected with it as to illustrate its character. Minor v. State, 15 Ala.App. 556, 74 So. 98, and cases cited.
However, it is the duty of the court to confine the evidence to the points in issue in order that the attention of the jury may not be distracted, or that their minds may not be withdrawn from the main issue and directed to matters which are foreign or of questionable or doubtful relevancy.
In prosecutions for murder, it is always permissible for the state to prove that the defendant entertained feelings of hostility toward the deceased, and for this purpose the fact but not the details or particulars, of recent former difficulties may be shown. Minor v. State, 15 Ala.App. 556, 74 So. 98; Quinn v. State, 1 Ala.App. 116, 55 So. 450; Allsup v. State, 15 Ala.App. 121, 72 So. 599; Smith v. State, 197 Ala. 193, 72 So. 316; 1 Mayf.Dig. p. 211.
In the instant case, the court below, over the timely objections and exceptions of defendant, permitted the solicitor to inquire into the details and to bring out the particulars of a former difficulty between deceased and defendant at a crap game. The evidence shows that after the first difficulty was over the defendant left and went to his home, which was from a half to three-quarters of a mile away, and then returned to, or near to, the place of the first difficulty, when he was met by one Lenn Turner, who gave to defendant the $2 in controversy which deceased had, and which belonged to defendant, and about which the first difficulty arose; and thereupon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seibold v. State
...not be withdrawn from the main issue and directed to matters which are foreign or of questionable or doubtful relevancy. Jones v. State, 17 Ala.App. 394, 85 So. 830. At another point in the cross-examination of the same witness, the following exchange took place between the court and defens......
-
Hill v. State
...from the primary issues, to be directed towards foreign matters or issues of questionable or doubtful relevancy. Jones v. State, 17 Ala.App. 394, 85 So. 830 (1920); Hoomes v. State, 34 Ala.App. 121, 37 So.2d 686 The Court below found that neither attorney had purposefully brought in evidenc......
-
Duncan v. State
...from the primary issues, to be directed towards foreign matters or issues of questionable or doubtful relevancy. Jones v. State, 17 Ala.App. 394, 85 So. 930 (1920); Hoomes v. State, 34 Ala.App. 121, 37 So.2d 686 And in an earlier statement by the Alabama Supreme Court in Jordan v. State, 81......
-
Arnold v. State
... ... and under the following authorities the court's ruling ... must be adjudged error: Hardaman v. State, 16 Ala ... App. 408, 78 So. 324 (on rehearing). Martin v ... State, 16 Ala. App. 406, 78 So. 322; Johnson's Case, ... 201 Ala. 41, 77 So. 335, 6 A. L. R. 1031; Jones v ... State, 17 Ala. App. 394, 85 So. 830; Dennison v ... State, 17 Ala. App. 674, 88 So. 211; Madry v ... State, 201 Ala. 512, 514, 78 So. 866 ... Application ... for rehearing is granted. The judgment of conviction is ... reversed, and the cause remanded ... Reversed ... ...