Kirkley v. State
Decision Date | 05 February 1924 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 309. |
Citation | 19 Ala.App. 570,99 So. 56 |
Parties | KIRKLEY v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Fayette County; Ernest Lacy, Judge.
Aline Kirkley was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
W. F Finch, of Jasper, and Robert F. Peters, of Fayette, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and O. B. Cornelius, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
This appellant, a white woman, was indicted for the offense of murder in the second degree; the charge being that she killed one Sanders Dillard (her own uncle) by shooting him with a pistol.
Upon the trial of the case she was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, the jury fixing her punishment at four years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. From the judgment based upon this verdict she appeals.
In considering this case we shall pretermit a discussion of the numerous insistences of error predicated upon the rulings of the court upon the admission and rejection of testimony. Each of these rulings has been examined, however, and in the opinion of the court no error appears in this connection of sufficient import to necessitate a reversal of the judgment appealed from, as it does not affirmatively appear by any of these rulings that the substantial rights of the defendant have been erroneously affected.
The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded, however, for the refusal by the court to give charge 3 requested in writing by defendant. Charge 3 is as follows:
The above charge was not abstract, under the evidence in this case, nor was it covered by the oral charge of the court or by the written charges given. The refusal of said charge has been held to be error many times by this court and by the Supreme Court. Black v. State, 5 Ala. App. 87, 59 South 692; McCutcheon v. State, 5 Ala. App. 96, 59 So. 714; Gibson v. State, 8 Ala. App. 56, 62 So. 895; Bone v. State, 8 Ala. App. 59, 62 So. 455; Langston v. State, 8 Ala. App. 129, 63 So. 38; Tyus v. State, 10 Ala. App. 10, 64 So. 516; Minor v. State, 16 Ala. App. 401, 78 So. 317; Teel v. State, 18 Ala. App. 405, 92 So. 518, 520; Ex parte State, etc., 207 Ala. 349, 92 So. 606; O'Rear v. State, 188 Ala. 71, 66 So. 81; Richardson v. State, 191 Ala. 21, 68 So. 57; Glass v. State, 201 Ala. 441, 78 So. 819; Bluett v. State, 151 Ala. 50, 44 So. 84; Bluitt v. State, 161 Ala. 16, 49 So. 854.
In the face of these numerous adjudications as to said charge, and possibly many others which might be collated, we are here asked to hold that the refusal of the charge was not error. This, of course, we cannot do, for, under the statute, the decisions of the Supreme Court of Alabama shall govern the holdings and the decisions of this court.
As refused charge 10 was not fairly and substantially covered by the oral charge of the court, or by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Potter v. State
...defendant.' (Emphasis added.) We realize that this charge has been held good in a number of cases including the following: Kirkley v. State, 19 Ala.App. 570, 99 So. 56; Pelham v. State, 24 Ala.App. 330, 134 So. 888; Witt v. State, 26 Ala.App. 465, 162 So. 137; Bluett v. State, 151 Ala. 41, ......
-
Dykes v. State
...11 Ala.App. 8, 65 So. 422; Langston v. State, 16 Ala.App. 123, 75 So. 715; Crumley v. State, 18 Ala.App. 105, 89 So. 847; Kirkley v. State, 19 Ala.App. 570, 99 So. 56; Bailey v. State, 22 Ala.App. 531, 117 So. Higdon v. State, 25 Ala.App. 209, 143 So. 213. It is to be noted that in the Rich......
- Lee v. State