Karr v. State

• Decision Date: 03 April 1895
• Citation: Karr v. State, 106 Ala. 1, 17 So. 328 (Ala. 1895)
• Parties: KARR v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

17 So. 328

106 Ala. 1

KARR v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 3, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, St. Clair county; Le Roy F. Box, Judge.

William C. Karr was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals.Reversed.

The appellant, William C. Karr, was indicted for the murder of one Jason Smith, and was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for 12 years.Upon the trial of the case, as is shown by the bill of exceptions the evidence for the state tended to show that, at the time of the shooting, the defendant and his father, John Karr were at the house of the defendant's father, sitting in the family room; that Jason Smith worked on the farm of defendant's father, and boarded and lodged at the house of his father, John Karr; that at noon Jason Smith came to the yard of John Karr, carrying in his hand a shotgun; that as he walked to the house, he was looking down upon the ground; that, when he stepped upon the steps, the defendant and his father made a noise with their feet, causing him to look up, and as he did so they both fired upon him with double-barreled shotguns, both shots taking effect, and resulting in the almost immediate death of said Jason Smith.

The testimony for the defendant tended to show that the deceased on the day before the killing, said he was going to kill both the defendant and his father, and on that morning he said to the brother of the defendant that he expected to kill both the defendant and his father, John Karr; that when he stepped up on the steps of the house, wherein the defendant and his father were, the deceased looked up at them, caught the gun which he was carrying in his right hand by his side with his left hand, and thereupon the defendant and his father fired.There was also evidence introduced on the part of the state showing that, several weeks previous to the killing, the deceased and John Karr had quarreled about the crop which was being raised by the deceased on the farm of John Karr, and that two days before the killing they had had another dispute and quarrel, which was renewed on the day before the killing.The state offered in evidence the following anonymous letter "Jason Smith you have been talking about sum wimmin scandlous in this settlement you said one hav told a God dam lie so you had better arraing yo business and get a way soon. we want no such people as yo in our settlement. you may burn houses but you must not talk about our wimmin as yo have. we will not stand it, so get of as soon as you can or we will come for you and let yo know who you are. we mean what we say. don't want to hurt yo, but we will if we have to go for yo.We have giv you far warnin."The evidence for the state tended to show that deceased had this letter in his possession two or three weeks before he was killed, and at the time he was killed.The testimony of the witness Glidewell, tending to show that this anonymous letter was written by the defendant, is sufficiently shown in the opinion.The defendant objected to said letter being introduced in evidence, on the grounds: (1) There was no sufficient predicate laid for its introduction; (2) it was not shown that defendant had anything to do with it; (3) it was hearsay; and (4) it was illegal.The court overruled these objections, and the defendant duly excepted.

The court, in its oral charge, instructed the jury, among other things, as follows: "Unless you are satisfied from the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, of the defendant's guilt, you should not convict him.I do not mean that you must be satisfied beyond all possible doubt, but beyond all reasonable doubt.The law does not require the defendant's guilt proved to a mathematical certainty, but the law does require his guilt proved to a moral certainty, before he can be convicted.It is not necessary that you should be so convinced of his guilt by the evidence that there can be no possibility of his innocence, but it is necessary that, before you can convict the defendant, you must be so convinced of his guilt by the evidence that there can be no probability of his innocence, and no reasonable doubt of his guilt.If there is probability of his innocence, this is just ground for reasonable doubt, and requires acquittal."The defendant duly excepted to this portion of the court's general charge.At the request of the state, through its solicitor, the court gave to the jury the following written charges: (1)"The court charges the jury that a person charged with murder, who seeks to justify himself on the ground of threats against his own life, is permitted to introduce evidence of such threats so made, but the same should not be regarded as affording a justification for the killing or offense, unless it is shown that at the time of the killing the person killed by some act then done manifested an intention to execute the threats so made, or reasonably appeared to defendant to be doing so."(2)"The court charges the jury that if the defendant relies on a justification of his acts partly by threats made against him by Jason Smith before the killing, then such threats will not, of themselves, be a justification of homicide, unless the jury further find from the evidence that the deceased at the time of the killing was manifesting an intention to carry such threats into execution by a positive act then done, or that, from the acts of the deceased at the time of the killing, it would have appeared to a reasonable mind, under the circumstances, that deceased was attempting to execute the threats against defendant or his father."(3)"If the evidence fails to show that at the time of the shooting Smith made any hostile demonstration towards William Karr or John Karr, then the jury cannot consider any evidence of threats made by Smith against William Karr or John Karr, or evidence of Smith's bad character."(4)"The expressions used in charging the jury, that the jury must find the defendant not guilty, unless the evidence should be such as to exclude to a moral certainty every hypothesis but that of the guilt of the defendant as charged, and that the evidence for the state should be so convincing as to lead the minds of the jury to the conclusion that the accused cannot be guiltless, are but strong expressions of that full measure of proof which the law exacts before it will sanction a conviction of crime, all of which only means that the jury must be convinced from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant's guilt."(5)"Previously formed design on defendant's part unlawfully to kill Smith, or any steps taken by defendant to bring on the difficulty, if found to exist, will deny to defendant the right to the plea of self-defense."(6)"The mere fact, if it is a fact, that Smith had forfeited his right to go to Karr's house, without Karr's consent, would not, without more, give the defendant the right to kill Smith."(7)"If defendant, Karr, had the previously formed design unlawfully to take Smith's life, and carried it into effect pursuant thereto, or if he was the aggressor, or brought on the difficulty, then Smith's character for violence, no matter how clearly proved, will avail him nothing."(8)"The law presumes malice from the use of a deadly weapon, and casts on the defendant the onus of repelling the presumption, unless the evidence which proves the killing shows also that it was done without malice."

The defendant separately excepted to the giving of each of these charges, and also separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of the following charges requested by him: (1)"The court charges the jury that if they believe from the evidence that there existed in the mind of the defendant, at the time he fired the fatal shot, a reasonable apprehension of imminent danger to his life or limb, or that of his father, then the defendant could lawfully act upon appearances, and kill his or his father's assailant, if the defendant was without fault in bringing on the difficulty."(2)"The court charges the jury that the law does not require one who is assailed in his own dwelling to retreat from it, but the law permits him and says that it is his right, to stand his ground and kill his assailant, if it is necessary to do so to save his life or protect himself from great bodily harm, provided he is without fault in bringing on the difficulty.And in this casethe court further charges the jury that if they believe from the evidence that the defendant was in his father's room with his father, and that the deceased, at the time, approached the room with a gun in his hand, and that defendant then had a reasonable apprehension of grievous bodily harm to himself or his father at the hands of the deceased, then the defendant, or his father, is not called upon to retreat, but the defendant could stand...