Metcalf v. State
| Decision Date | 18 March 1919 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 542 |
| Citation | 17 Ala.App. 14,81 So. 350 |
| Parties | METCALF v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; T.L. Sowell, Judge.
Will Metcalf was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
M.L Leith and George W. Powell, both of Jasper, for appellant.
Emmett S. Thigpen, Atty.Gen., for the State.
On the trial of this case, the wife of the defendant, testifying in his behalf, related the details of a difficulty between herself and the deceased, which occurred on the morning of the day of the homicide, in which the deceased attempted to outrage her, and in the fight the deceased struck her several blows in the face, and otherwise injured her, and then left her. She further testified that when her husband (the defendant) came home from his work, about 5 o'clock of the same day, she showed him her injuries, told him the details as testified to and the name of the deceased. In rebuttal, the state, over the timely objection of the defendant, was allowed to offer testimony tending to contradict the wife's statement as to the details of the difficulty between the wife of defendant and deceased. The evidence in the case, and even the testimony of the defendant himself, is to the effect that, when the defendant learned of the assault made on his wife by the deceased, defendant armed himself, sought out the deceased, whom he found in a dance hall in Jasper, and when he found him he proceeded to kill him. There was therefore no element of self-defense involved in the trial, no question as to who brought on the difficulty, and hence the details of the mistreatment of defendant's wife by deceased was not competent evidence under the plea of not guilty. Gafford v. State, 122 Ala. 54, 25 So. 10; Thomas v. State, 150 Ala. 31-40 43 So. 371; Angling v. State, 137 Ala. 17, 34 So 846; James v. State, 167 Ala. 14-18, 52 So. 840; McWilliams v. State, 178 Ala. 69, 60 So. 101. McWilliams v. State, 178 Ala. 69, 60 So. 101); or whether the facts and circumstances as they came to the defendant were calculated to render the defendant insane, within the meaning of the law defining insanity. The question as to whether the true details of the difficulty between defendant's wife and deceased had been told defendant was not material to either of these issues.
It is the mental condition of the defendant at the time of the homicide as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barbour v. State
...letter. The argument indulged by counsel should not have been permitted, and the court erred in not suppressing it.' In Metcalf v. State, 17 Ala.App. 14, 81 So. 350, the trial court allowed the defendant's wife to testify concerning the details of a fight between herself and the deceased. T......
-
Hembree v. State
...that he (Glass) knew enough to break his (Hembree's) neck was nothing more than an opinion and was not material evidence. Metcalf v. State, 17 Ala. App. 14, 81 So. 350; Robinson v. State, 14 Ala. App. 25, 70 So. Western Ry. of Ala. v. Turrentine, 197 Ala. 603, 73 So. 40. The defendant's wif......
-
Cobb v. State, 1 Div. 970.
...may have been weak and inconclusive, none the less the court was not authorized to take the question from the jury. Metcalf v. State, 17 Ala. App. 14, 81 So. 350; Howard v. State, 172 Ala. 402, 55 So. 255, 34 L. A. (N. S.) 990. The jury should have been instructed as to the law of insanity ......
-
Hill v. State
...the house just a few minutes prior to the shooting. 30 Corpus Juris, p. 224; Levens v. State, 3 Ala.App. 45, 57 So. 497; Metcalf v. State, 17 Ala.App. 14, 81 So. 350. are other erroneous rulings upon the admission of evidence, but as this case is to be reversed, a discussion of each of thes......