Little v. State

• Decision Date: 21 December 1905
• Citation: 145 Ala. 662,39 So. 674
• Parties: LITTLE v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

39 So. 674

145 Ala. 662

LITTLE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 21, 1905

Appeal from City Court of Bessemer; William Jackson, Judge.

"Not officially reported."

O. A Little was convicted of homicide, and appeals. Reversed.

Witness Joe Plunkett stated that he was deputy sheriff at Johns on the night Sweeney was shot, and then stated, testifying for the state, that he and Eastman, another deputy sheriff, went and got two bloodhounds and carried them to the bush where the shot was said to have been made, and that the hound struck trail, and went off up the road a short distance, and circled right back to Tom Armstrong's. To this evidence there was objection, which was overruled. Charges 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8, refused, assert the proposition, expressed in different language, that the duty is on the jury to acquit the defendant, unless the state has shown his guilt by evidence beyond all reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. Other charges were refused, as follows: "(5) If there is a conflict in this evidence in this case, and the jury cannot reconcile the evidence so as to make all the witnesses speak the truth, or have a reasonable doubt as to who spoke the truth, you give the defendant the benefit of such reasonable doubt and acquit him. (6) I charge, if the jury believe any witness in this case has sworn falsely, the jury has a right to disregard the entire evidence of such witness. (7) Before the jury is authorized to render a verdict of guilt, the state must prove his guilt to a moral certainty."

Shugart & Bell, for appellant.

Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

ANDERSON J.

In order for the trailing of the bloodhounds to have been legal evidence, it should have been first shown that they were trained to track human beings and could do so with a degree of accuracy. Hodge v. State, 98 Ala. 10, 13 So. 385 39 Am. St. Rep. 17; Pedigo v. State of Ky. (Ky.) 44 S.W. 143, 42 L. R. A. 432, 82 Am. St. Rep. 566. There was no merit in any of the other objections to the evidence.

Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 correctly assert a most elementary principle of law, and should have been given, although the court may have been justified in refusing some of them, after having given some of the others, upon the idea that the refused ones were mere repetitions of those given.

Charge 7 was elliptical, and was properly refused.

Charge 5 was properly refused. It was misleading, as the jury...