Lindsey v. State
| Decision Date | 18 January 1921 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 690 |
| Citation | 17 Ala.App. 670,88 So. 189 |
| Parties | LINDSEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; H.B. Foster, Judge.
Claude Lindsey was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and he appealed. Affirmed.
Harwood, McKinley, McQueen & Aldridge, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Under an indictment charging the defendant with murder in the first degree, he was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of five years.
In the course of his final argument to the jury the solicitor used the following as a part of his argument:
The four above statements of the solicitor are made the basis for the only assignment of error in the case. These statements appear to be conclusions drawn from the state's theory of its case, which would follow should the jury concur in such a conclusion.
Embraced within the indictment under which the defendant was on trial was murder in the first and second degree, manslaughter in the first and second degree, assault with intent to murder and assault and battery, and the punishment in each instance left with the jury, varying from death to the payment of a fine, in the event that the jury should conclude that the defendant was guilty. The solicitor, therefore, believing from the facts that the defendant was guilty, we take it, was seeking to have the jury mete out such punishment as would not only be sufficient in this case, but such as would be a sign and warning to others not to travel the same course, and in so doing we think he was as well within his province as it would have been for the defendant to have called their attention to and press upon them the necessity of believing that the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...232, 142 So. 427; Ex parte State ex rel. Davis, 210 Ala. 96, 97 So. 573; Davidson v. State, 211 Ala. 471, 100 So. 641; Lindsey v. State, 17 Ala.App. 670, 88 So. 189; and Witt v. State, 27 Ala.App. 409, 174 So. 794, certiorari denied 234 Ala. 391, 174 So. We now direct our attention to the c......
-
Arant v. State
...Counsel for the state and defendant are allowed a rather wide latitude in drawing their deductions from the evidence. Lindsey v. State, 17 Ala.App. 670, 88 So. 189; Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476; Hobbs State, 74 Ala. 39, 41. It is insisted that the statement of the solicitor in argument to th......
-
Jones v. State
... ... the permissible rule ... The ... following authorities are indicative of the extent to which ... this method of argument has been sanctioned by our appellate ... courts. King v. State, 17 Ala.App. 536, 87 So. 701; ... Sharp v. State, 193 Ala. 22, 69 So. 122; Lindsey ... v. State, 17 Ala.App. 670, 88 So. 189; Davidson v ... State, 211 Ala. 471, 100 So. 641; Tyler v ... State, 210 Ala. 96, 97 So. 573; Arnold v ... State, 18 Ala.App. 453, 93 So. 83; Snoddy v ... State, 20 Ala.App. 168, 101 So. 303; Frost v ... State, 225 Ala. 232, 142 So. 427; Witt v ... ...
-
Johnson v. State
...Edwards v. State, 56 Ala.App. 405, 321 So.2d 744 (1975); Bullard v. State, 40 Ala.App. 641, 120 So.2d 580 (1960); Lindsey v. State, 17 Ala.App. 670, 88 So. 189 (1921)." Roberts v. State, 346 So.2d 473, 476-77 (Ala.Cr.App.1977), cert. denied, 346 So.2d 478 The judgments of the circuit court ......
-
'n' guilty men.
...State, 274 So. 2d 333, 346 (Ala. Crim. App.) (n = "many") rev'd on other "rounds, 274 So. 2d 352 (Ala. 1972). (232) See Lindsey v. State, 88 So. 189, 190 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921) ("[I]t is better that the guilty go free than that the innocent should (233) See Ex parte Mauricio, 523 So. 2d 87, 9......