Lawrence v. State
| Decision Date | 12 July 1888 |
| Parties | LAWRENCE v. STATE. [1] |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Pike county; JOHN P. HUBBARD, Judge.
The defendant, Lawrence, was convicted for assault with intent to murder Coon Worthy. From the judgment he appeals.
T N. McClellan, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Generally all occurrences, and the declaration accompanying them having reference to and connected with the commission of an offense, though not coincident in point of time, are admissible in evidence as illustrating the conduct and motive of the accused. While the particulars or merits of a previous difficulty cannot be inquired into, the fact of such difficulty and the threats accompanying it may be proved for the purpose of showing malice or a motive for doing the deed. The previous assault and threats by the defendant against the particular person whom he is charged with having subsequently assaulted, had reference to the commission of the offense and were admissible to show the intent with which the last assault was made. Ross v. State, 62 Ala. 224. If the details so far as narrated were not competent, the objection, as made, goes to the entire evidence relating to the previous difficulty and threats, and was properly overruled.
An intent to murder is an essential element of the offense of which the defendant was convicted, the burden of proving which is on the prosecution. If the facts and circumstances were such as, if death had ensued, would have reduced the offense to manslaughter, the defendant could not have been convicted of an assault with intent to murder. The determination of the guilt or innocence of the defendant necessarily involved the inquiry whether, if death had ensued, the offense would have been murder or manslaughter, or whether the killing would have been excusable homicide. But if murder, the inquiry is immaterial whether murder in the first or second degree, for, if in either degree, the defendant was guilty as charged. Meredith v. State, 60 Ala. 441.
To complete the offense, there must be both a wrongful act and a malicious intent,-an assault, and an intent to murder. A mere intent, without ability to accomplish it, real or apparent is not sufficient. The charge given by the court, at the request of the prosecution, that "it is the intent unlawfully and maliciously to kill the person assaulted, which constitutes the crime of an assault with intent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Justice
...(7 Allen) 541, 83 Am.Dec. 705; Walters v. People, 6 Parker, Cr.R. (N.Y.) 15; Phillips v. State, 62 Ark. 119, 34 S.W. 539; Lawrence v. State, 84 Ala. 424, 5 So. 33; State v. Merkley, 74 Iowa, 695, 39 N.W. State v. Patza, 3 La.Ann. 512; State v. Nugent, 71 Mo. 136; State v. Brooks, 1 Ohio Dec......
-
Gafford v. State
...v. State, 74 Ala. 9; Gray v. State, 63 Ala. 66; Rutledge v. State, 88 Ala. 85, 7 So. 335; Hudson v. State, 61 Ala. 333; Lawrence v. State, 84 Ala. 424, 5 So. 33; v. State, 91 Ala. 10, 8 So. 669; Jones v. State, 116 Ala. 468, 23 So. 135. It certainly will not be denied that, if defendant had......
-
Valentine v. State
... ... she said to the defendant and what he said in reply. Evidence ... of the threat was admissible. Wims v. State, 90 Ala ... 623, 8 So. 566; Barnes v. State, 88 Ala. 204, 7 So ... 38, 16 Am. St. Rep. 48; Drake v. State, 110 Ala. 9, ... 20 So. 450; Lawrence v. State, 84 Ala. 424, 5 So ... 33. The evidence was admissible as part of the res gestæ ... L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Stewart, 128 Ala. 313, 29 So ... 562; So. Ry. Co. v. Crowder, 130 Ala. 256, 30 So ... It was ... competent for the state to show by Mrs. Valentine that she ... knew ... ...
-
Brooks v. State
...to show malice and criminal intent. See Rains v. State, 88 Ala. 91, 7 So. 315; Cribbs v. State, 86 Ala. 613, 6 So. 109; Lawrence v. State, 84 Ala. 424, 5 So. 33. A threat is not rendered inadmissible because it is directed at a class of people when the victim is a member of that class. Ford......