Maddox v. State

• Decision Date: 18 February 1909
• Citation: 48 So. 689,159 Ala. 53
• Parties: MADDOX v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

48 So. 689

159 Ala. 53

MADDOX v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 18, 1909

Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court; Henry B. Foster, Judge.

Collins Maddox was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The witness Lucinda Murray, being on the stand, was asked the following questions and made the following answers, to which objections were made and overruled, and to which exceptions were reserved: "(1) State whether Collins Maddox, after the cutting, went home, and got a gun, and came back up there. A. He went home, and got a gun, and came back there where she and others were with Jesse Davis [the man who was alleged to have been killed by a cut from a knife]. Collins Maddox was gone 15 or 20 minutes before he came back. (2) State what Collins Maddox said when he came back. A. Turn him loose, and I will finish the damn ______." The defendant then asked the witness: "Did not the defendant say, at his house, as he was going out to get his mule, just after the fuss came up down there, that he was going down to Mr Joe Foster's and get him to have the fuss stopped, or make him stop cutting up?" Objection was sustained to this question. The state then introduced Fred Bailey, and the solicitor asked the witness to state whether, after the cutting, Collins Maddox went off and came back again, and the witness answered that he did go off and come back again. Objection was interposed and overruled to the question and answer. Further questions: "State what defendant had when he came back, if anything. A. He had a shotgun. Q. State what the defendant said when he came back, if anything. A. Get out of the way and let me shoot him. I'm going to finish him." The defendant then asked the witness the following question, to which objection was sustained "Did not the defendant, at his home, just before you left, say that he was going after Mr. Joe Foster, and have him make Jesse Davis stop that fussing down there?" The defendant then introduced Maddox, and offered to ask him the same question as to what the defendant said about getting Mr Foster to stop the fuss, to which objection was sustained, and this question, "State whether the defendant, at the time he went to the lot, stated for what purpose he was going, and whether he stated where he would go," to which objection was sustained, and this question, "State whether or not the defendant stated, at the time he started for the lot, where he was going," to which objection was sustained. On cross-examination the solicitor asked this witness the following question: "State what you were doing when Collins came back down there where the cutting occurred. A. That he was holding Jesse Davis up." Objection was interposed and overruled to both question and answer, as they were to the following question and answer to the same witness: "While you were holding Jesse Davis up, to keep his entrails out of the row, did not Collins Maddox tell you to get out of the way, that he was going to finish Jesse Davis?" and the answer, "Turn him loose, I am going to shoot him." While the defendant was on the stand, he testified that he had ordered Davis to go away from the house, and Davis replied, "Damn you, and your yard, too; I'm not going anywhere."

Daniel Collier, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

MAYFIELD J.

It has been uniformly held in this state, in homicide cases, that the conduct, demeanor, and expressions of the accused, at or about the time of the homicide, are matters admissible in evidence against, but not for, him, unless part of the res gestæ. McManus' Case, 36 Ala. 292; Blount's Case, 49 Ala. 381; Miller's Case, 107 Ala. 40, 19 So. 37; Johnson's Case, 17 Ala. 623; Henry's Case, 79 Ala 42; Armor v. State, 63 Ala. 173; Levison v. State, 54 Ala. 520; Reeves v. State, 96 Ala. 33, 11 So. 296; Pate v. State, 94 Ala. 14, 10 So. 665; Campbell v. State, 23 Ala. 44. This court has probably gone as far as any other in holding such evidence admissible against the accused and inadmissible for him. In the case of Hainsworth v. State, 136 Ala. 13, 34 So. 203, it was held that evidence as to the facial expression of the accused, how he looked or appeared, at a prayer meeting several hours before the homicide, which was committed at the house of the deceased, some distance from the place of the prayer meeting, was admissible against him. In Campbell's Case, 23 Ala. 79, it was held that the state could prove the appearance of the accused on the evening of the day of the homicide, and on the following day, but that the accused could not prove his appearance or expressions three days subsequent to the killing. The reason given in this case, and in other authorities, for the rule, is that evidence of the conduct, demeanor, acts, expressions, or appearance of the accused, shortly before, at the time of, or shortly after, the homicide, is admissible against him, because his conduct, appearance, and expressions, on these occasions, are presumed to correspond with the truth, but that they operate in the...