Macon v. State
| Decision Date | 05 December 1912 |
| Citation | 179 Ala. 6,60 So. 312 |
| Parties | MACON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tallapoosa County; Bernard Harwood Judge.
Will Macon was convicted of first-degree murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.
J Wilson Nolen, of Alexander City, and J. W. Strother, of Dadeville, for appellant.
R. C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree. The victim was murdered at about 1 o'clock a. m., on his way home from a social gathering, where he and defendant had been together, and when last seen alive he was with defendant. There was no eyewitness to the murder, and, with the exception of an incriminating admission by defendant, the evidence was entirely circumstantial.
The theory of the prosecution was that robbery was the motive of the murder, and in support of that theory the state was allowed to prove that, when the murdered man was found on the sidewalk, his pockets were examined and found to be empty and that a silver dime was found on the ground a foot or two from his body; that defendant and deceased were playing cards for money at the house where the party were gathered; and that deceased then and there won $2.50 from defendant. All of this evidence was clearly relevant, and the objections thereto were properly overruled.
There was no error in allowing a state's witness to testify that the wound on the head of deceased "seemed to have been made with a blunt instrument." Fuller v. State, 117 Ala. 39, 23 So. 688; Perry v. State, 87 Ala. 30, 6 So. 425.
There was no valid objection to the testimony of another state's witness that he saw defendant, as he passed witness' house about daylight on the morning after the murder, and that in response to his inquiry defendant said that he "was walking about, and that he had been up all night raising sand."
"Chippy" Brown was neither a party nor a witness in the case, and what he said as he approached the place where the body of deceased lay was properly excluded as mere hearsay.
The inculpatory statement made by defendant to several of the state's witnesses was not in the nature of a confession, and preliminary proof of its voluntary character was not necessary. McGehee v. State, 171 Ala. 19,
55 So. 159. However, we think the predicate for its introduction was entirely sufficient. Moreover, the objections were general, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
... ... State, 62 Ala. 154; Durrett ... v. State, 62 Ala. 434; Pentecost v. State, 107 ... Ala. 81, 18 So. 146; Love v. State, 124 Ala. 82, 27 ... So. 217; Meadows v. State, 136 Ala. 67, 34 So. 183; ... McGehee v. State, 171 Ala. 19, 55 So. 159; Watts ... v. State, 177 Ala. 24, 59 So. 270; Macon v ... State, 179 Ala. 6, 60 So. 312 ... 2. The ... lower court properly refused to allow the defendant to ... testify to the details of prior difficulties between herself ... and deceased. If so separated in point of time or ... circumstances from the act charged as not to ... ...
-
Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Mabry
...any special damages, there must be notice given to the carrier of all facts, and all the special circumstances. 148 S.W. 1035; 54 Ark. 22; 60 So. 312; 128 S.W. 1030; 104 Ark. 215; 97 S.W. 757. There is no proof in the record of any notice whatever, and it therefore fails to show any unreaso......
-
Whitehead v. State
... ... 177 Ala. 24, 59 So. 270 ... On the ... other hand, inculpatory admissions as to collateral facts, ... however incriminating, not in the nature of a confession, are ... not within the rule of exclusion, and are admissible without ... preliminary proof that they are voluntary. Macon v ... State, 179 Ala. 6, 60 So. 312; Read v. State, ... 195 Ala. 671, 71 So. 96; Love v. State, 124 Ala. 82, ... 27 So. 217. The reason upon which the rule excluding ... involuntary confessions as evidence rests is that they are ... coerced by the menace of punishment or the excitement of ... ...
-
Potter v. State
...for a witness who has observed wounds to testify that they seemed to have been made with a sharp or blunt instrument. Macon v. State, 179 Ala. 6, 60 So. 312. Appellant contends that the trial judge was in error in refusing 42 written requested charges. We have reviewed them carefully and co......