King v. State

• Decision Date: 19 June 1890
• Citation: 8 So. 120,89 Ala. 43
• Parties: KING v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

8 So. 120

89 Ala. 43

KING v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 19, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Dale county; J. M. CARMICHAEL, Judge.

The indictment in this case charged that the defendant, Jake M King, "did knowingly and willfully oppose or resist an officer, E. P. Whitehead, a constable of beat No. 12 in said county, in attempting to serve or execute a warrant of arrest issued by J. L TRAWICK, a justice of the peace," on the complaint of one J. F. Williamson, charging said King with an assault; and the warrant was set out in full. All the material facts are sufficiently set out in the opinion of this court. The defendant requested the court to give the following charges, and duly excepted to their refusal "(1) If the jury are in a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant assaulted Whitehead from any other motive than resisting the legal process, they must find for the defendant. (2) It was the duty of the officer to make known to the defendant for what he was to be arrested; and, if he failed to make it known to defendant, they must find defendant not guilty."

H L. Martin, for appellant.

W L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

STONE C.J.

In Jones v. State, 60 Ala. 99, the officer attempted to prevent a breach of the peace within his presence, and was resisted in the attempt. He had no warrant or process for the arrest of any one. That case was clearly not within the statute which provides only for resistance of an "officer of the state in serving, executing, or attempting to serve or execute," a legal writ or process. Code 1886, § 3974. That case sheds no light on this. The present case is peculiar in its facts. Williamson had sued out a warrant from a justice of the peace, charging that King was guilty of an assault. That warrant was in the hands of Whitehead, the constable, for execution, and Whitehead was spending the night at the residence of Williamson, the prosecutor. King hearing in some way, not shown in the record, that Whitehead had a warrant for him, did not wait for the officer to come to him to make the arrest. He went to the house of Williamson, and inquired for Whitehead. Being shown to his whereabouts, he asked the officer if he had a warrant for his arrest. He answered that he had. Both Whitehead and King made an unsuccessful attempt to read the warant, when King snatched the warrant from the hands of the officer, and kept it until the next morning. He did not then restore it to Whitehead, but, dropping it out of his pocket, Whitehead repossessed himself of it. King refused to go or be carried before Justice TRAWICK, who had issued the warrant, but declared his intention to carry the warrant to his attorney at the county-seat, for the purpose of learning whether the warrant was all right. He also used offensive and defiant language. Up to this point there was no conflict in the testimony. It is manifest that King did not approach the officer with the intention of submitting to the process of the law, and we are convinced he knew what the charge was which led to the issue of the warrant. He did not profess ignorance of it. This excused...