Letson v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 839 |
| Citation | 110 So. 21,215 Ala. 229 |
| Parties | LETSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 11, 1926
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; J.E. Horton, Judge.
Jimmie Roe Letson was convicted of first degree murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Williams & Chenault, of Russellville, and E.B. Downing, of Moulton for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Robt. G. Tate, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
Among the jurors drawn for the week beginning August 10th, and included in the list served on defendant, his case being set for trial on August 12th, was the name of John A. Henderson. Upon the organization of the regular juries for the week, the juror, being asked if he was over the age of 21 and under the age of 65, answered that he was 65. The court excused him. In making up the jury roll, "no person must be selected who is under twenty-one or over sixty-five years of age." Code, § 8603. Such juror, if placed on the jury, is subject to challenge for cause. Code, § 8610, subd. 8. "The court may excuse from service any person summoned as a juror if he is disqualified or exempt, or for any other reasonable or proper cause, to be determined by the court." Code, § 8614. It is the policy of the law not to have persons over or under age on the jury. Such fact is a "proper cause" for excusing the juror, in the discretion of the court. Stewart v. State, 137 Ala. 33, 41, 34 So 818.
In common parlance, a person speaks of himself as 65 years of age when he has reached or passed his sixty-fifth birthday, after the close of his sixty-fifth year, and he has entered upon his sixty-sixth year of age. He is then over 65 years of age. There was no error in the court's ruling.
The evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant and his brother, armed with pistols, upon learning of the appearance of the deceased, intercepted him while passing along the public road near defendant's house, accosted deceased with an order to throw up his hands, instantly opened fire, and killed him. Defendant was armed with two pistols. There was evidence tending to show that after emptying an automatic, and deceased had fallen, defendant drew the second pistol and continued firing into the prostrate body at close range. Many shots entered the body. Defendant's version was that he and his brother had started across the road on other business, that deceased stopped as they approached, said something not understood, and raised his gun to fire, whereupon defendant fired. He denied firing after deceased fell to the ground and the gun dropped from his hand.
The clothing worn by deceased, punctured with bullets, was properly admitted in evidence as corroborative of the state's evidence. Husch v. State, 211 Ala. 274, 100 So. 321.
There was evidence of bad feeling between the parties of several months standing; that Motes, the deceased, charged defendant Letson with having insulted Motes' wife; that Motes threatened to kill defendant unless he left the community; and that Motes was carrying a gun for the execution of his threats.
George Thompson, a witness for defendant, testified that a week or ten days before the killing witness and two others had a conversation with Motes in which:
Defendant offered to prove that witness was sent to Motes by defendant. This testimony was rejected on objection by the state. This was without error. Defendant had the full benefit of the threats made by Motes as going to the question of who was the aggressor in the fatal rencounter. Gestures toward peace made by defendant on former occasions could not mitigate in any way his acceptance of the challenge, becoming the aggressor, bringing on and entering willingly into the combat.
To admit the proposed evidence as tending to show who was the aggressor would open the door to self-serving acts and declarations not connected with the difficulty. The same policy which forbids the details of a former difficulty as showing who was then in the wrong forbids the evidence here offered. The same applies to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Batson v. State
... ... (James v. State, supra), the presumption being that the court ... did its duty in the premises. That juror Davies was not a ... citizen of the county and state was a ground of challenge as ... a juror. Sections 8610, 8663, Code; Letson v. State ... (Ala.Sup.) 110 So. 21. It did not invalidate the verdict ... and judgment rendered by his not being challenged. Kohl ... v. Lehlback, 160 U.S. 293, 16 S.Ct. 304, 40 L.Ed. 432; ... Raub v. Carpenter, 187 U.S. 159, 23 S.Ct. 72, 47 ... L.Ed. 119 ... The ... objection that ... ...
-
Mack v. State
...policy of the law not to have persons over or under age on the jury. Such fact is a proper cause for excusing the juror. Letson v. State, 215 Ala. 229, 110 So. 21; Slay v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 338 So.2d As to the juror who stated she was a distant cousin to the deceased without more does not......
-
Benton v. State
... ... pierced the clothing of deceased, said clothing was ... introduced in evidence before the jury without error ... Smith v. State, 183 Ala. 10, 62 So. 864; ... Rollings v. State, 160 Ala. 82, 49 So. 329; ... Watkins v. State, 89 Ala. 82, 8 So. 134; Letson ... v. State, 215 Ala. 229, 110 So. 21; Hyche v ... State, 217 Ala. 114, 114 So. 906. The holding in the ... case of Boyette v. State, 215 Ala. 472, 110 So. 812, ... of course is without application here ... Deceased being admittedly shot by appellant with a pistol, we ... ...
-
Frazier v. State
...some degree better than that found in the average juror or witness. McElroy, Law of Evidence in Alabama, § 127, pp. 49-50, Letson v. State, 215 Ala. 229, 110 So. 21, Hicks v. State, 247 Ala. 439, 25 So.2d 139 (nurse gave opinion as to fatality of an axe wound), cf. Daniel v. State, 31 Ala.A......