Martin v. State
| Decision Date | 16 November 1948 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 38. |
| Parties | MARTIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
A L. Patterson and J. W. Brassell, both of Phenix City, for appellant.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Hugh F Culverhouse, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant in this case was indicted for murder in the first degree. His jury trial resulted in a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree and a sentence to confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of fifteen years.
The tendency of the evidence presented by the state, if believed under the required rule, amply justified the verdict of the jury. This evidence was directed toward showing that the appellant had, a short while before his reencounter with deceased, made threats of his intention to injure the deceased, these threats apparently springing from a family disturbance that took place the previous day; that upon meeting deceased on a street in the City of Phenix City on the morning of 23 June 1948 the appellant obtained a pick handle from a truck parked nearby and struck the deceased one or more blows over the head as the deceased was attempting to walk away from the scene; the deceased was knocked down, and dazed by the blow or blows, and there was bleeding from his head wound.
The deceased was carried to the Phenix City jail by police officers who arrived within a few minutes after he had been struck. At the jail the deceased was, according to one officer, in a dazed condition, and according to another officer, in an unconscious condition. At the jail the deceased was nauseated and vomited blood. He was later removed to a hospital. X-ray pictures of his skull revealed a fracture in the left parietal bone of the skull. The deceased was apparently unconscious during most, if not all, of his stay at the hospital and died in the early afternoon of the day following his admittance.
The defense introduced evidence tending to dispute practically every phase of the evidence introduced by the state. An irreconcilable conflict exists between the evidence presented by the State and that presented by the defense. The jury by its verdict apparently accepted the version presented by the State. This conclusion was clearly in the jury's province. In view of this we can see no useful purpose in detailing the defense evidence and therefore omit such detailing in the interest of brevity.
In their brief appellant's counsel have urged two propositions as constituting reversible error. We have of course, consonant with our duty, examined this entire record for any and all error or errors. We are clear to the conclusion that no error, unless contained in the points argued in appellant's brief infect this record.
The first point argued in appellant's brief is that the lower court erred in admitting over appellant's objection, a hat allegedly worn by deceased at the time of the difficulty with the appellant.
The deceased's wife testified that the hat was the one that deceased had when he was 'brought in' shortly after the difficulty, and that it was deceased's hat. When deceased was 'brought in' he was bleeding from a wound on his head, and the inside of the hat was bloody. And the witness for the state identified the hat as being the one lying near deceased immediately after he was struck by the appellant. The appellant himself identified the hat as being similar to a hat worn by deceased at the time of their reencounter.
During the trial below the defense introduced certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial