Jordan v. State
| Decision Date | 13 June 1887 |
| Citation | 2 So. 460,82 Ala. 1 |
| Parties | JORDAN AND ANOTHER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Montgomery city court.
Indictment for murder.
Syllabus by the Court.
Held, as on the former appeal in this case, (1 South. Rep. 577,) that the declarations of the deceased, made about two hours after receiving the wounds which proved fatal, to a friend who was attending him before the arrival of a physician, "Jule shot me, and Handy cut me, and all for nothing," were properly admitted as evidence, on the testimony of the witness that the deceased said, just before "He did not think he would get well," although the witness declared to him his own opinion that he would recover. [1]
Where two persons are on trial for murder, and the evidence shows that one of them cut the deceased with a knife as he advanced on the other, who then fired the fatal shot with a pistol each is equally guilty, and it is not necessary that there should be positive proof of a common purpose previously formed.
This is the third time this case has been before this court. 79 Ala 9, and 1 South. Rep. 577. The defendants, Jule Jordan and Handy Jordan, were jointly indicted and tried for the murder of Albert York, "by shooting him with a pistol," as alleged in the first count of the indictment; and "by cutting him with a knife," as alleged in the second count. On the first trial each of the defendants was convicted of murder in the second degree; and that conviction being pleaded, on the last trial, as an acquittal of murder in the first degree, and the plea sustained, they were tried for murder in the second degree; to which they pleaded not guilty, but were again convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary each for the term of 10 years. It was shown on the trial, as appears from the bill of exceptions, which purports to set outsubstantially all the evidence, that the homicide occurred in November, 1885, at the house of one Jerry Williams in the county, where a "party" was given by George Raoul or his wife, all the persons present being freedmen. The house consisted of two front rooms, one called the "dance-room," and the other the "party-room." There was a door connecting the two rooms, and a front door in each leading out to the road; and there was a shed room in the rear of each. In the early part of the evening Jule Jordan, in attempting to light a cigar put out the lamps in the "party-room," and Mason Taylor and Sam Williams got into a dispute. Immediately after this Mason Taylor, Jule Jordan, and Albert York, the deceased, left the house, and started off to another dance in the neighborhood; whereupon Jerry Williams and George Raoul followed them, and Raoul "attacked Mason Taylor about taking people away from his dance." While the difficulty between Raoul and Taylor was going on, Jule Jordan said, according to the testimony of some of the witnesses, having a pistol in his hands, "I'll put a light through any one who hits Mason Taylor." This difficulty was quieted, and the parties returned to the house. Handy Jordan was not present at this occurrence, and no witness testified that Handy knew or was informed of it. After the parties had returned to the house, while Jerry Williams and Albert York were engaged with Jule Jordan trying to take a stick away from him, (while Jule was attempting to do violence,) Handy Jordan come into the house, and said, "Turn Jule loose, I'll cut you up;" whereupon Williams said they were not hurting Jule, and Handy went away. About half an hour after this, while Mason Taylor was making some fuss in the dance-room, Albert York walked up to him, cursed him, and knocked him down; whereupon Jule Jordan remonstrated with York, telling him he ought to be ashamed to strike Taylor. The evidence for the state tended to show that York then started towards Jule Jordan, but turned and went out of the house, coming back at once, and again started towards Jule, who was standing near the rear wall of the room; that said York, in order to reach Jule, was compelled to pass by the fire-place, where Handy stood; that Handy reached out, as York passed, and cut him in the right shoulder; that York turned towards Handy, and Jule then shot him. But the evidence for the defendants tended to show that, when York first started towards Jule Jordan, some one separated them, and put York outside of the door into the yard; that he came back immediately, having in his hand a stick as large as a man's wrist, and as long as a man's arm, and rushedtowards Jule Jordan, who was standing near the fire-place, and who told him to stand back; that Jule retreated, as York advanced, until he reached the wall; that York grappled him, holding the stick in one hand; but the testimony was contradictory as to whether York still had the stick when Jule shot him. York died on the evening of the next day, and the physician who attended and dressed his wounds testified that he died from the effects of the pistol shot, the cut with the knife not being dangerous.
The state introduced one Berry Johnson as a witness, who testified The defendants each objected to the admission of this declaration of the deceased, and each excepted to the overruling of his objection.
The court gave the following charges to the jury, on the request of the state: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stokley v. State
...discussion on this point is rendered unnecessary. Jordan v. State, 79 Ala. 9; Jordan v. State, 81 Ala. 20, 32, 1 So. 577; Jordan v. State, 82 Ala. 1, 2 So. 460; Martin v. State, 89 Ala. 115, 8 So. 23, 18 Am.St.Rep. 91; Amos v. State, 83 Ala. 1, 3 So. 749, 3 Am.St.Rep. 682; Tidwell v. State,......
-
Henderson v. State
... ... inevitably followed from such knife wound alone, and ... notwithstanding they may not have believed that there was any ... preconcert or community of purpose between defendant and his ... son. Daughdrill v. State, 113 Ala. 34, 21 So. 378; ... Jordan v. State, 79 Ala. 9. And, although the jury ... may not have believed that said knife wound contributed in ... the least to the death of deceased, yet, if they did believe ... from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was ... preconcert or community of purpose between the ... ...
-
State v. Batiste
...speculate upon which actually caused the death...." Bennett v. Commonwealth, 150 Ky. 604, 150 S.W. 806 at 808 (1912). See Jordan v. State, 82 Ala. 1, 2 So. 460 (1887); Anderson v. State, 43 Tex.Cr.R. 275, 65 S.W. 523 (1901); Payne v. Commonwealth, 255 Ky. 533, 75 S.W.2d 14 (1934); Farley v.......
-
Gregory v. State
...to by Patillo and McConnell were properly admitted. Gibson v. State, 126 Ala. 59, 28 So. 673; Daughdrill v. State, supra; Jordan v. State, 82 Ala. 1, 2 So. 460, and there cited. The statement made by the deceased as to his condition, and the circumstances under which it was made, differenti......