McGuffin v. State

• Decision Date: 29 June 1912
• Citation: 178 Ala. 40,59 So. 635
• Parties: MCGUFFIN v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

59 So. 635

178 Ala. 40

MCGUFFIN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 29, 1912

Appeal from City Court of Anniston; Thos. W. Coleman, Judge.

William McGuffin was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The oral charge of the court, objected to, was as follows "(1) If a man is subject to arrest--done something for which the officers of the law have a right to arrest him--and he should take the life of another intentionally, in order to avoid arrest, that might be his sole motive. He might not have the slightest feeling of anger or ill will towards the officer who undertook to arrest him; but, either through fear of the consequences, or desire not to be arrested, he kills the person who undertakes to arrest him lawfully, and that is his sole motive in law, that would be malicious notwithstanding the total absence of ill will towards the person whom he killed."

(2) Here the court stated the facts in the Daughdrill Case as an illustration of the fact that no particular time is required for the deliberation and premeditation that are elements of murder in the first degree, concluding with the statement that he was sentenced to be hung, and was hung.

(3) "Now, there is a good deal of testimony in this case as to what occurred before and what occurred afterwards; and I believe some criticism was indulged by some of the counsel upon some of the police going to the house of the defendant when the defendant was in a drunken condition at his house as they claim. Whether or not that was wrong for the police to go out there cannot be considered in any way as bearing on the guilt or innocence of this defendant at the time he shot Cunningham. It is not improper for me to say that I see no impropriety in the police officers of a city going to a man's house, and if he is sitting in his house intoxicated on a Sunday afternoon, with a weapon in his hand but, be that as it may, certainly that has no possible bearing on whether or not defendant should be excused for an act that he did a half hour afterwards."

O. M. Alexander and P. F. Whorton, both of Anniston, for appellant.

R. C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIMPSON J.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree.

There was no error in allowing the introduction of the pistol, after the witness had stated that it was either the one which defendant had on him, or one just like it. In addition, the defendant himself afterwards identified the pistol as his.

There was no error in overruling the objection to the question to the defendant, when on the stand as a witness, on cross-examination, "Where did you get that Swiss rifle?" It was permissible to test the accuracy of the witness' statement that he was too drunk to remember anything.

There was no error in that part of the court's oral charge marked (1). "Malice, in law,...