Lundy v. State
| Decision Date | 12 May 1920 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 640 |
| Citation | 17 Ala.App. 454,85 So. 819 |
| Parties | LUNDY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 1, 1920
Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; A.B. Foster, Judge.
Charlie Lundy was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Certiorari denied. 85 So. 821.
E.O Baldwin, of Andalusia, for appellant.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant, together with his father and his four brothers was jointly indicted and jointly tried for the offense of murder in the first degree. There was a verdict of not guilty in favor of all the defendants, except appellant, Charlie Lundy. He was convicted by the jury of murder in the second degree, and his punishment was fixed at 10 years' imprisonment in the penitentiary.
On this appeal it appears that the only questions insisted upon as error are the rulings of the court upon the evidence. Two special written charges were also refused by the court, but as these charges related solely to Pete Lundy and Joe Lundy, both of whom were acquitted by the verdict of the jury, the court's ruling in this connection need not be considered. The same is true with reference to several rulings of the court upon evidence which related solely to others of the defendants who were acquitted by the verdict of the jury, and while there was no effort upon the part of any of the defendants to confine the evidence to such of them only to whom it had reference, where it clearly appears that the rulings complained of related in no way or manner to appellant, or did not or could not affect his substantial rights, it is not deemed necessary to consider these questions upon this appeal.
It appears from the evidence that the deceased, one John Mitchell, a brother-in-law of defendant, was last seen alive on Sunday night, August 3, 1919, and at that time he was seen leaving Florala in company only with the defendant, Charlie Lundy, and deceased stated that he was going to the home of defendant to spend the night. The murdered body of deceased was not found until the afternoon of the following Friday and it was then discovered by some passers-by, who were attracted to the body by buzzards. The body was badly decomposed when found, and was also mutilated by the feasting of the buzzards thereon. It was the theory of the state that Mitchell had met his death on Sunday night, and that it was caused by his having been shot with a gun loaded with buckshot. The evidence is without conflict that the deceased and his wife, the sister of defendant, had separated and were not living together at the time of the homicide.
Dr Ferrin Young, who had qualified as an expert, went, with several others, to the body of deceased, and made an examination of the body, clothing, hat, shoes, etc. The first ruling of the court complained of was in permitting this witness to testify that the shoes exhibited to him by the solicitor at the time of the trial "looked like the shoes" which were on the feet of deceased at the time this witness went to the body, and that in his judgment th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
... ... might have tended to inflame the minds of the jury ... Grissett v. State, 241 Ala. 343, 345, 2 So.2d 399; ... Birmingham Baptist Hospital v. Blackwell, 221 Ala ... 225, 227, 128 So. 389; Sanders v. State, 202 Ala ... 37, 79 So. 375; Lundy v. State, 17 Ala.App. 454, 85 ... So. 819, certiorari denied 204 Ala. 492, 85 So. 821; ... Commonwealth v. Sydlosky, 305 Pa. [31 Ala.App. 25] ... 406(3), 158 A. 154; State v. Holt, 47 Nev. 233, 219 ... P. 557(4) ... The ... same principle governs the introduction of clothes worn ... ...
-
Bush v. State
...20 So. 632, 56 Am. St. Rep. 17; Bates v. Morris, 101 Ala. 282, 13 So. 138, Carroll v. State, 16 Ala. App. 454, 78 So. 717; Lundy v. State, 17 Ala. App. 454, 85 So. 819; Thomas v. State, 139 Ala. 85, 36 So. 734. Washington v. State, supra, it was said: "The court is not bound to cast about f......
-
Stallings v. State
... ... though they also might have tended to inflame the minds of ... the jury. Grissett v. State, 241 Ala. 343, 345, 2 ... So.2d 399; Birmingham Baptist Hospital v. Blackwell, ... 221 Ala. 225, 227, 128 So. 389; Sanders [249 Ala. 5] ... v. State, 202 Ala. 37, 79 So. 375; Lundy v ... State, 17 Ala.App. 454, 85 So. 819, certiorari denied ... 204 Ala. 492, 85 So. 821; Commonwealth v. Sydolsky, ... 305 Pa. 406(3), 158 A. 154; State v. Holt, 47 Nev ... 233, 219 P. 557(4). 'The same principle governs the ... introduction of clothes worn by the deceased when killed ... ...
-
White v. State
... ... wide scope of this witness' testimony both on direct, ... cross, and redirect examination, the testimony appears ... competent under the authority of the following cases: ... Null v. State, 16 Ala.App. 542, 79 So. 678; ... Carden v. State, 203 Ala. 173, 82 So. 423; Lundy ... v. State, 85 So. 819. Furthermore, if there had been ... error in this connection, which there was not, such error was ... cured by the defendant himself having, on recross-examination ... of this witness, brought out the same testimony above ... objected to, and even went further into the ... ...