Lakey v. State
Decision Date | 03 June 1924 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 977. |
Citation | 20 Ala.App. 78,101 So. 537 |
Parties | LAKEY v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 17, 1924.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; George F. Smoot, Judge.
Northern Lakey was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The refusal of requested instructions covered by those given held not error.
The verdict of the jury was:
"We the jury, find the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, and fix his punishment at imprisonment for one year in the penitentiary."
The following charges were refused to the defendant:
Charges 2 and G are in substance the same as charge 9 treated in Lakey v. State, 18 Ala. App. 442, 93 So. 51.
Charge BB is in substance the same as charge CC above.
L. H. Ellis, of Columbiana, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This defendant was originally indicted for murder in the first degree, and the first trial of this case resulted in a conviction of murder in the second degree and a sentence to 40 years imprisonment in the penitentiary. On appeal from said judgment the Supreme Court of this state reversed same and remanded the cause. Lakey v. State, 206 Ala. 180, 89 So. 605.
Upon the second trial in the court below the state confessed the defendant's plea of autrefois acquit as to murder in the first degree, and he was put upon trial for the lesser offenses comprehended and included in the indictment. He was again convicted of the offense of murder in the second degree, and his punishment fixed at 17 years in the penitentiary. On appeal from that judgment this court adjudged a reversal. 18 Ala. App. 442, 93 So. 51. He was again tried in the court below on March 26, 1923, which trial resulted in his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, the jury fixing his punishment at one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The court received the verdict and properly sentenced the defendant to one year hard labor for the county and for an additional period of time of 10 months to pay the cost. That portion of the verdict of the jury designating the place of punishment was properly treated by the court as surplusage, the place of punishment being provided by section 7620 of the Code 1907 under the terms of which the prisoner was properly sentenced. From this judgment he appeals.
No briefs have been filed for appellant, but, as the law requires, we have examined the record for apparent errors and have considered all questions reserved by the bill of exceptions. Code 1907, § 6264.
The testimony offered by the state, briefly stated, tended to show that Sheriff Hamlin and his deputy, Ramsey, the deceased named in the indictment and who the state insists was killed by the defendant, which is the basis of this prosecution, together with two federal prohibition officers, went to the home of the defendant somewhere about midnight on the night of July 2, 1920; that they found the barn was locked, this being the place that they desired to search, and that thereupon they went to the house of the defendant stating to him that they had been informed that he had whisky on his premises, and that they wished to make a search thereof; that he voluntarily consented, got up, got his keys, and went and opened the barn for them; that after they had searched for some little time, the deceased (Ramsey) found a bottle containing whisky in a certain part of the barn; and that when this whisky was found the defendant became suddenly enraged because of it, began to curse the four officers, and without any overt act on the part of the deceased or any other officer, fired at the deceased three times, the deceased firing at the defendant once and the other officers firing at him subsequently, but the defendant escaped without injury.
The defendant's version of the affair was, and his testimony tended to show, that the officers put the defendant under duress, and that when he was told by the officers that they wanted to search the barn, he unlocked the door, no showing of force being apparent on the testimony other than inferentially; that after they got to the barn the deceased flashed a light in defendant's face, was advancing on him with a pistol after the party had been cursing him for some time; and that he fired in self-defense. The defendant's testimony also had a tendency to show that the officers had been drinking at the home of one Gordon, who had been raided during the early part of the night, but all of the officers denied that any of them were drinking on the night of the tragedy.
State witness Allen, a federal prohibition officer, while testifying on direct examination, stated that the officers told the defendant they had information that he had whisky stored in his barn. The defendant moved to exclude this statement. In the first place, it does not appear what the question was which elicited the statement, and that objection was interposed before the question was answered. The statement, however, referred to the res gestæ, this court having held on the previous appeal (18 Ala. App. 442, 93 So 51 [3]), that anything said or done during the search tending to explain...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Williams v. State
- Pickett v. State
- Haney v. State
-
Stephens v. State
... ... permitting Cawley to testify is not subject to revision ... State v. Brookshire, 2 Ala. 303; Montgomery v ... State, 40 Ala. 684; McGuff v. State, 88 Ala ... 147, 7 So. 35, 16 Am.St.Rep. 25; Riley v. State, 88 ... Ala. 193, 7 So. 149; Beaird v. State, 219 Ala. 46, ... 121 So. 38; Lakey v. State, 20 Ala.App. 78, 101 So ... 537, certiorari denied, 211 Ala. 615, 101 [250 Ala. 128] So ... 541; Miller v. State, 21 Ala.App. 261, 107 So. 226 ... Evidence for the State tended to show that the deceased owned ... only one knife and that at the time of the difficulty ... ...