Madley v. State
| Decision Date | 20 May 1915 |
| Docket Number | 559 |
| Citation | 68 So. 864,192 Ala. 5 |
| Parties | MADLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marengo County; John T. Lackland, Judge.
Jasper Madley was convicted of homicide, and he appeals. Affirmed.
George Pegram, of Faunsdale, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and J.P. Mudd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
In trials of homicide cases it is often necessary as well as proper to prove by physicians the condition of the body of the deceased when examined by such physicians, the location and the nature of the wounds, and, when they are shown to be qualified to so testify, to elicit their opinions as experts as to the cause and means of the death. Such testimony is often admissible, if not necessary, to prove the corpus delicti, as charged in the indictment.
In this case the death was alleged to have been caused by strangulation, and of course evidence was admissible to prove this material averment. Such evidence was therefore admissible even before any proof was offered, tending to connect the defendant with the killing. Scott v State, 141 Ala. 1, 37 So. 357; Rash v. State, 61 Ala. 90; 1 Mayf.Dig. p. 672.
There was therefore no error in admitting the testimony of the doctors in this case; that objected to was clearly admissible under the above authorities. The fact that the deceased had been dead some time, when examined by them, did not render such evidence inadmissible. It has frequently been deemed proper by courts, on such trials, to order the body of the deceased to be exhumed and thereafter examined, to ascertain the cause of the death.
There was likewise no error in permitting witnesses to testify as to the condition of the room in which the deceased was found dead, and as to the existence or nonexistence of bloody garments or objects in the room or near the scene of the crime. 1 Mayf.Dig. p. 667. It was not necessary, to render such proof admissible, to show that the room and the clothing and other objects to which the testimony related, were in the same condition when seen by the witnesses as when the homicide was committed. Evidence as to the scene of the crime is always admissible on the trial of offenses like the one in question. Authorities supra.
It was competent for the state to prove by the witness, Martha Richardson, that Willie Randall called deceased out of a house just prior to the commission of the offense, and that Randall said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whatley v. State
...610 So.2d 1181 (Ala.1992), cert. denied, Parker v. Alabama, 509 U.S. 929, 113 S.Ct. 3053, 125 L.Ed.2d 737 (1993). “In Madley v. State, 192 Ala. 5, 68 So. 864 [ (1915) ], a prosecution for homicide, it is stated, in reference to testimony as to objects found at or near the scene of the crime......
-
McKee v. State
...454; Cunningham v. State, 22 Ala.App. 583, 118 So. 242; Rash v. State, 61 Ala. 89; Simon v. State, 108 Ala. 27, 18 So. 731; Madley v. State, 192 Ala. 5, 68 So. 864; Wilson v. State, 195 Ala. 675, 71 So. 115; Mitchell v. State, 18 Ala.App. 471, 93 So. 46; Hicks v. State, 247 Ala. 439, 25 So.......
-
McKee v. State
... ... instant concern. Collins v. State, 250 Ala. 58, 33 ... So.2d 18; Roan v. State, 225 Ala. 428, 143 So. 454; ... Cunningham v. State, 22 Ala.App. 583, 118 So. 242; ... Rash v. State, 61 Ala. 89; Simon v. State, ... 108 Ala. 27, 18 So. 731; Madley v. State, 192 Ala ... 5, 68 So. 864; Wilson v. State, 195 Ala. 675, 71 So ... 115; Mitchell v. State, 18 Ala.App. 471, 93 So. 46; ... Hicks v. State, 247 Ala. 439, 25 So.2d 139; ... Thomas v. State, 249 Ala. 358, ... ...
-
Coats v. State
...proof admissible, to show that the bed was in the same condition when seen by these witnesses as when the homicide occurred. Madley v. State, 192 Ala. 5, 68 So. 864. Even if it be assumed that it was error for the trial court to permit a State witness to testify that on a former visit to th......