Martin v. State

• Decision Date: 13 January 1916
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 227
• Citation: 71 So. 693,196 Ala. 584
• Parties: MARTIN v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

71 So. 693

196 Ala. 584

MARTIN v. STATE.

6 Div. 227

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 13, 1916

Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1916

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.

Sam Martin was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Mayfield and Sayre, JJ., dissenting in part.

The facts sufficiently appear. The following charges were refused to defendant:

(4) The jury must construe every reasonable doubt in favor of defendant.

(8) If any member of the jury have a reasonable doubt of the guilt of defendant from the evidence, the jury will give the benefit of the doubt to defendant, and not return a verdict of guilty.

(11) In this cause the burden of proof is not shifted from the state to defendant, and the presumption of innocence abides with defendant until the evidence in the cause convinces the jury that the defendant cannot be guiltless and unless that is done, you should acquit him.

Frank S. Andress, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Hugo L Black, of Birmingham, for the State.

McCLELLAN J.

The appellant was adjudged guilty of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to suffer death. The victim was James Little. Little was assassinated when he opened a door in the house of one Garret. The only issue in the case was whether the defendant was the assassin.

Little survived the shot about 18 hours. After ample proof that Little was conscious of his impending dissolution, the prosecution was allowed to show several statements made by Little in which he said the defendant was his assailant. After Little had been taken to a hospital in Birmingham, and at a time when the evidence tended to show that he realized he was near death, the defendant was brought into his presence; and thereupon, in response to a question designated the defendant as the one who shot him. There was also evidence tending to show that the defendant, in whose actual presence Little thus accused him, made no denial or other statement. The statements attributed to Little in this connection were patently admissible as dying declarations. That the substance of Little's accusing statement, designating the defendant as his assailant, was admissible, is too clear for doubt. Yarbrough v. State, 105 Ala. 43, 16 So. 758. There was no error in any of the rulings on the evidence.

Charge numbered 8, requested for the defendant, was correctly refused, since it would have imposed upon the...