Marks v. State
| Decision Date | 20 June 1889 |
| Parties | MARKS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Tuscaloosa county; S. H. SPROTT, Judge.
Dinah Marks was indicted for the murder of Julia Cannon, was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for 10 years, and appeals.
Cochrane & Fitts, for appellant.
W L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
E. R King, a witness for the state, testified, on his examination in chief, to several distinct matters, each having a tendency to inculpate the defendant, and each bearing the same relation to defendant's motion to exclude, to the overruling of which an exception was reserved. This witness' testimony was, in effect, that at the time of the crime he was marshal of the city of Tuscaloosa, but had nothing to do with the arrest of the defendant; that after her commitment he found some bloody clothing of the defendant; that about Tuesday of the week after she was put in jail he carried the clothing to her in jail; that she claimed it, and attempted to explain the appearance of blood on the garments; that he then left her; that a few days afterwards she sent for him, and he went to her again on Friday of the week; that she then made certain statements to him about the homicide with which she was charged; that he made no threats, nor held out any inducements, nor made any promises, to get her to confess, but that she commenced the conversation herself, without any suggestions of any kind of his part; that her statements to him were purely voluntary on her part; and that she then proceeded to tell him the facts and circumstances of the homicide, which the witness then repeated to the jury. At the conclusion of the examination in chief of this witness, during which he had testified to all the foregoing facts, the bill of exceptions set forth that Beyond all question, under the repeated decisions of this court, this motion to exclude went to all of the testimony of the witness King on his examination in chief. The exception to the overruling of the motion was, of necessity, likewise general, having reference to all this evidence; and, if any fact testified to by this witness was competent, the appellant can take nothing by the exception though other parts of the evidence against which it is directed should be palpably inadmissible. 3 Brick. Dig. p. 80, §§ 41, 42; Reynolds v. State, 68 Ala. 502; Boswell v. State, 63 Ala. 307; Black v. Coal Co., 85 Ala. 511, 5 South Rep. 89.
Even should it be admitted that the confessions deposed to by this witness were inadmissible, because of the supposed continuing influence of antecedent inducements, as insisted by counsel there can be no question of the competency of the evidence relating to the clothing of the defendant, and hence there was no error in the overruling of the motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lipscomb v. State
...objection is to the whole evidence, some of which is competent and some not, it may be properly overruled: 1 Peters, 328, 338; 111 Ala. 34; 87 Ala. 99; Ala. 8; 85 Ala. 198; 84 Ala. 279; 85 Ala. 192; 82 Ala. 25; 72 Ala. 92; 66 Ala. 129; Id., 422; 63 Ala. 307; 56 Ala. 379; 93 Va., 279; 90 Ten......
-
Boyd v. State
...error, unless it affirmatively appears that no injury resulted therefrom. Maxwell v. State, 89 Ala. 150, 164, 7 So. 824; Marks v. State, 87 Ala. 99, 6 So. 377; Vaughan v. State, 83 Ala. 55, 3 So. 530; Williams v. State, 83 Ala. 16, 3 So. 616; Mitchell v. State, 60 Ala. 26. To inquire and pr......
-
Stit v. State
...88 Ala. 8, 7 South. Rep. 97; Badders v. Davis, 88 Ala. 367, 6 South. Rep. 834; Coleman v. State, 87 Ala. 14, 6 South. Rep. 290; Marks v. State, 87 Ala. 99, 6 South. Rep. The only other exception reserved is thus presented by the bill of exceptions: "The defendant asked that the following sp......
-
Henson v. State
...§ 4333. Independent of this recent statute, errors which were beneficial to the defendant were not available to reverse. Marks v. State, 87 Ala. 99, 6 So. 377, cases there cited. That the jury was allowed to express in the verdict the place, as well as the period, of punishment, was likewis......