Lucy v. State, 2 Div. 74
Decision Date | 14 November 1972 |
Docket Number | 2 Div. 74 |
Parties | Ernest Lee LUCY v. STATE |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Leonard M. Lowrey, Jr., Linden, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Don C. Dickert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was charged with murder in the first degree, convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced to ten years imprisonment.
A brief statement of the evidence introduced by the State tends to show that on a Sunday afternoon in April of 1971, Johnny Dumas was visiting in the home of his sister, Rosalie Calhoun. The appellant and several other people were there, including the husband of Rosalie. Johnny Dumas told appellant to stop seeing Rosalie's fourteen year old daughter. Then Dumas left for his home apparently to get his gun after telling appellant that if he was there when he got back he was going to kill him. Dumas came back shortly with his shotgun, whereupon appellant, who was still there, ran into the Calhoun house. Then Dumas, after being told that the appellant was in the house, started in the back door with his gun. Just as he entered the door, he was met by appellant, who stabbed him several times with a knife in the area of the chest whereupon the deceased let the gun go and started back toward his car. He was followed by appellant, who stabbed him several more times by the time he reached the corner of the house. The deceased walked over to his car, fell to the ground, bleeding profusely and died shortly thereafter.
The appellant did not testify himself and offered no witness in his own defense.
In brief, the appellant argues that the court erred in admitting testimony, over appellant's objection, that appellant was going with the fourteen year old daughter of Rosalie and Fred Calhoun. It appears that both Rosalie and Fred Calhoun had asked appellant, a married man, sometime in the past, not to see the girl but he had kept coming back to the house where they lived to see her. As set out in the statement of facts above, shortly before the killing, the deceased, Johnny Dumas, had also warned the appellant and told him to stop seeing this girl, after which Dumas went home and got his gun and returned to the scene.
We think this testimony was relevant as tending to throw some light upon the question of motive, the proof of which is not necessary but always provable.
A fact is admissible if it has probative value upon a provable matter, even though that value may be very slight and weak. Senn v. State, 35 Ala.App. 62, 43 So.2d 540; Barnes v. State, 31 Ala.App. 187, 14 So.2d 242.
We think the ruling of the court, complained of, was in line with the authorities, supra, and many others along the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carter v. State
...the victim was not breathing and had a gunshot wound to the head, with small pellet holes around it. On the basis of Lucy v. State, 49 Ala.App. 116, 269 So.2d 134 (1972), the trial judge allowed the witness to testify in the presence of the jury that the cause of death was a gunshot wound t......
-
White v. State
...The appellate court will not reverse its ruling unless there has been an abuse of that discretion. Brown, supra; Lucy v. State, 49 Ala.App. 116, 269 So.2d 134 (1972); Colvin v. State, 32 Ala.App. 142, 22 So.2d 544 Generally an expert can give an opinion based on personal knowledge, or based......
-
Humphrey v. State, 3 Div. 846
...to prove or disprove a material fact in issue at the trial. See also, Manson v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 349 So.2d 67; Lucy v. State, 49 Ala.App. 116, 269 So.2d 134; McElroy, Alabama Evidence, § 21.01(1), at pp. The determination of whether the shotgun was relevant to the issues at trial was add......
-
Davis v. State
...fact is admissible if it has probative value upon a provable matter, even though that value may be very slight and weak. Lucy v. State, 49 Ala.App. 116, 269 So.2d 134, and authorities cited Thus, we find the rule of relevance and materiality stated in Mattison v. State, 55 Ala. 224: '. . . ......