Maddox v. State

CourtAlabama Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMAYFIELD, J.
Citation48 So. 689,159 Ala. 53
PartiesMADDOX v. STATE.
Decision Date18 February 1909

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 practice notes
  • Zumbado v. State, CR-89-21
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 22, 1993
    ...being performed or immediately contemplated by the declarant, the act of beginning or contemplating the trip or journey. Maddox v. State, 159 Ala. 53, 48 So. 689 [1909]; Mayo v. State, 15 Ala. [App.] 304, 73 So. 141 [1916]; Hardaman v. State, 17 Ala.App. 49, 50, 81 So. 449 Thornton v. State......
  • Hayes v. State, 6 Div. 2
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 25, 1980
    ...being performed or immediately contemplated by the declarant, the act of beginning or contemplating the trip or journey. Maddox v. State, 159 Ala. 53, 48 So. 689; Mayo v. State, 15 Ala. (App.) 304, 73 So. 141; Hardaman v. State, 17 Ala.App. 49, 50, 81 So. The ruling of the court in receivin......
  • Warren v. State, 8 Div. 889
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 30, 1916
    ...the difficulty. See 6 Mayf.Dig. p. 351; Underhill, Crim.Ev. § 96; Keiser v. Smith, 71 Ala. 485, 46 Am.Rep. 342; Maddox's Case, 159 Ala. 55, 48 So. 689; Terry v. Williams, 148 Ala. 468, 41 So. 804; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Manker, 145 Ala. 418, 41 So. 850; Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Stewart, ......
  • Karsner v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • October 24, 1930
    ...12 S.W. 673, 11 Ky. Law Rep. 620 (2 hours); Howard v. Commonwealth, 227 Ky. 142, 12 S.W.2d 324 (just a few minutes); Maddox v. State, 159 Ala. 53, 48 So. 689 (20 minutes); Morris v. State, 146 Ala. 66, 41 So. 274 (10 minutes); Henderson v. State, 70 Ala. 29 (6 minutes); Taggart v. Commonwea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
48 cases
  • Hayes v. State, 6 Div. 2
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 25, 1980
    ...being performed or immediately contemplated by the declarant, the act of beginning or contemplating the trip or journey. Maddox v. State, 159 Ala. 53, 48 So. 689; Mayo v. State, 15 Ala. (App.) 304, 73 So. 141; Hardaman v. State, 17 Ala.App. 49, 50, 81 So. The ruling of the court in receivin......
  • Zumbado v. State, CR-89-21
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 22, 1993
    ...being performed or immediately contemplated by the declarant, the act of beginning or contemplating the trip or journey. Maddox v. State, 159 Ala. 53, 48 So. 689 [1909]; Mayo v. State, 15 Ala. [App.] 304, 73 So. 141 [1916]; Hardaman v. State, 17 Ala.App. 49, 50, 81 So. 449 Thornton v. State......
  • Warren v. State, 8 Div. 889
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 30, 1916
    ...the difficulty. See 6 Mayf.Dig. p. 351; Underhill, Crim.Ev. § 96; Keiser v. Smith, 71 Ala. 485, 46 Am.Rep. 342; Maddox's Case, 159 Ala. 55, 48 So. 689; Terry v. Williams, 148 Ala. 468, 41 So. 804; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Manker, 145 Ala. 418, 41 So. 850; Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Stewart, ......
  • Karsner v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • October 24, 1930
    ...12 S.W. 673, 11 Ky. Law Rep. 620 (2 hours); Howard v. Commonwealth, 227 Ky. 142, 12 S.W.2d 324 (just a few minutes); Maddox v. State, 159 Ala. 53, 48 So. 689 (20 minutes); Morris v. State, 146 Ala. 66, 41 So. 274 (10 minutes); Henderson v. State, 70 Ala. 29 (6 minutes); Taggart v. Commonwea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT