Littleton v. State

• Decision Date: 20 December 1900
• Citation: 128 Ala. 31,29 So. 390
• Parties: LITTLETON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

29 So. 390

128 Ala. 31

LITTLETON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 20, 1900

Appeal from circuit court, Lee county; A. A. Evans, Judge.

Frank Littleton was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant, Frank Littleton, was jointly indicted with one Henry Thomas for the murder of Ella Hodges. The defendant Littleton, demanded a severance which was granted; thereupon he was tried separately, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for life.

The evidence in the case tending to show that the defendant Frank Littleton, murdered Ella Hodges, was entirely circumstantial. It was shown that the deceased, Ella Hodges was an unmarried woman, and the sister of the defendant's wife; and there was evidence tending to show that at the time of her death she was in a delicate condition, resulting from her seduction. Her body was found in a mill pond not far distant from the defendant's house, and the marks indicating violence upon the deceased were described in the testimony of Dr. F. G. Hendrick which is set forth in the opinion. In the part of the mill pond where her body was found the water was three or four feet deep; and, leading to that part of the mill pond, there were discovered tracks just above the banks of the pond, and some of the witnesses for the state testified that from where these tracks were seen there were indications upon the ground like something had been dragged to the edge of the pond just opposite to where the body of the deceased was found. It was also shown that at the time of her death, Ella Hodges was living at the house of the defendant; and there was evidence tending to show that during the time the deceased was at the house of defendant, he sought to obtain medicines which would prevent the disclosure of the deceased's delicate condition.

Dr. F. G. Hendrick was introduced as a witness for the state, and testified that he was a practicing physician, and had been engaged in the practice for several years, and that as a physician he was called on to examine the body of Ella Hodges.

The facts pertaining to the rulings upon the evidence, relating to the testimony of Dr. Hendrick, are sufficiently shown in the opinion.

Upon the examination of Mrs. Martha Dixon, who was the mother of Ella Hodges, the deceased, she testified that she had a conversation with the defendant about the deceased's condition, in which she charged him with being the person responsible for the deceased's downfall, and that, in this conversation, he impliedly admitted that he was guilty thereof, and said he would take the deceased to his home with him, and care for her; and that he did take the deceased home with him. The bill of exceptions then contains the following recitals, relative to examination of witness, Mrs. Martha Dixon: "The state's solicitor asked the witness this question, to wit: 'What was her condition?' The defendant objected to the question, on the ground that it was illegal, irrelevant, incompetent and called for a conclusion of the witness, which objection being considered by the court was by the court overruled, and the defendant then and there duly excepted. The witness answered: 'She was in a family way.' Defendant moved to exclude the answer of the witness on the same grounds as were interposed to the objection of the question, which motion being considered by the court was by the court overruled, and the defendant duly excepted."

J. W. Meadows on his examination as witness for the state testified that he was one of the coroner's jury to examine the body of Ella Hodges, and that on the shore of the bank, near where the body was found, he saw two tracks. He was then asked by the state the following question: "Were the two tracks of the same kind or different kinds?" The defendant objected to this question, on the ground that it called for illegal, incompetent and immaterial evidence, and asked for conclusion or opinion of the witness. The court overruled the objection, to which ruling the defendant duly excepted. Thereupon, the witness answered: "I saw two different tracks, made by different sized shoes." The defendant moved to exclude this answer from the jury upon the same ground as was interposed to the question calling for the answer. The court overruled the motion and defendant duly excepted.

There was testimony on the behalf of the defendant, tending to show that he did not kill the deceased. The defendant as a witness in his own behalf testified that he did not kill the deceased; and he further testified to the circumstances of his finding the body of the deceased in the mill pond.

Among the written charges given by the court to the jury at the request of the solicitor, at the giving of each of which the defendant duly excepted, were the following: "The state is not required to prove defendant's guilt beyond all doubt, but only to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." The defendant requested the court to give to the jury, among others, the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of the said charges, as asked: "Each juryman must separately and segregately be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that defendant is guilty, or they must acquit him." "The court charges you gentlemen of the jury, that if you are reasonably doubtful as to the proof in this case of any material allegation of the indictment, you must acquit the defendant."

Barnes & Duke, for appellant.

Chas. G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARALSON J.

1. It is not denied that Dr. F. G. Hendrick, witness for the state was an expert as a physician and surgeon. He described the wounds on the deceased, stating that on an "examination of her body he found bruises on her throat,-three on one side and two on the other,-the three on the one side were dark and bloodshot, each about the size of the end of one's finger, and the three were joined by lighter colored bloodshot appearance," etc. He was asked by the solicitor, "What in your opinion was the character of the...