Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 14 May 1908 |
| Citation | Jones v. State, 155 Ala. 1, 46 So. 579 (Ala. 1908) |
| Parties | JONES v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Blount County; John W. Inzer, Judge.
Walter Jones was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
C. D. Comstock, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted for the manslaughter of one Will Smith. Witnesses Fairley and Bramlett, neither of whom were shown to be experts, were permitted to testify against defendant's objection that in their opinion the wound received by Smith in the stomach, made by a pistol ball fired by defendant caused his death. In this there was error. Only an expert could testify to the fatality of such a wound.
Reversed and remanded.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Scott v. State
...the facts there were so dissimilar to those in the case at bar that we did not deem it necessary to point out the distinction. In the Jones case, the court observed: 'Witnesses Fairley Bramlett, neither of whom were shown to be experts, were permitted to testify' etc. In the Anderson case [......
-
Birmingham & A. Ry. Co. v. Campbell
...Searcy, 50 Ala. 54." See Perrine v. Bitulithic Co., 190 Ala. 96, 66 So. 705; Barker v. Coleman, 35 Ala. 221, 225. The case of Jones v. State, 155 Ala. 1, 46 So. 579, not to the contrary. Where a nonexpert was asked if in his opinion the pistol shot had caused decedent's death, it was held o......
-
Phillips v. State
... ... 79, 23 So ... 776; Evans v. State, 120 Ala. 269, 25 So. 175; ... Thomas v. State, 24 Ala.App. 425, 136 So. 419; ... Gunn v. State, 24 Ala.App. 494, 136 So. 870 ... [248 ... Ala. 516] However, only an expert can express an opinion as ... to the fatality of a wound. Jones v. State, 155 Ala ... 1, 46 So. 579; Rash v. State, 61 Ala. 89; Hicks ... v. State, 247 Ala. 439, 25 So.2d 139. Appellant insists ... that the trial court erred in permitting State witness Jesse ... Cox to testify over the objection of the appellant that in ... his opinion the wounds ... ...
-
Ex parte Bell
...or dead at the time that the witness and the defendant left him. A lay witness may not testify as to the cause of death, Jones v. State, 155 Ala. 1, 46 So. 579 (1908); but, a lay witness may testify that another was dead. As noted by C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 128.10 (3d ed.197......