Miller v. State
| Decision Date | 21 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 682. |
| Citation | 41 So.2d 432,34 Ala.App. 483 |
| Parties | MILLER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
C. L. Watts and Walter F. Eigenbrod, of Huntsville, for appellant.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Jas. T. Hardin, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The following charges were refused to defendant:
'31. I charge you, gentlemen of the Jury, that under the facts in this case, as shown by the evidence, Charlie Martin was acting under the direction and as an agent of the City Police officers; and I further charge you that his conduct in the home of the defendant, Joe Miller, was the conduct of the city officers and should be so regarded by you in determining whether the defendant Joe Miller, was acting under coercion
when he fired the pistol which is alleged to have struck Joy Knight.
'32. I Charge you, gentlemen of the jury if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence in this case that Charlie Martin by pre-arrangement with the city officers, entered the home of the defendant, Joe Miller, on the occasion in question, the said Charlie Martin, in entering the defendant's home, would be acting as the agent of the city officers; and if you are further reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the said Charlie Martin, while in the defendant's home, unlawfully assaulted Joe Miller with a knife and Joe Miller thereupon shot at Charlie Martin and struck Joy Knight, the defendant must be said to have been acting under coercion in the firing of said shot, and would not be guilty of the offense charged in the indictment, and should be acquitted.'
The defendant below was indicted for assault with intent to murder and convicted of assault with a weapon.
A motion for a new trial was timely filed and overruled.
The Assistant Attorney General has fairly and accurately set out in his brief the tendencies of the State's evidence. We copy pertinent facts therefrom:
'It appears from the testimony introduced by the State of Alabama that during the month of May 1947, city policemen, Joy Knight and Vernon Lee, went to the home of appellant herein, seeking to apprehend said appellant in the act of selling illegal alcoholic beverages. Upon said occasion, these policemen carried with them one Charlie Martin, a colored person, described by said policemen as an 'informer.'
The testimony of the appellant does not disclose a very clear description of his explanation of the occurrence. As we interpret it, he claimed that Charlie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. State
...cross examination is not to be extended to inquire into matters which are entirely foreign to the issues involved. Miller v. State, 34 Ala.App. 483, 41 So.2d 432. If by this line of questioning counsel expected to show any ill will or friction between the tenant and his landlord, and thereb......
-
Coleman v. State, 4 Div. 234
...Ala.App., 64 So.2d 606; Johnson v. State, 36 Ala.App. 203, 54 So.2d 84; Knighten v. State, 35 Ala.App. 524, 49 So.2d 789; Miller v. State, 34 Ala.App. 483, 41 So.2d 432. The charge of instant concern is not hypothesized on the Charges numbered 77, 82, 85, and 89 were covered by the court's ......
-
Smith v. State
...Code 1940. Charge 17, if not otherwise faulty, is not based on the evidence. Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179; Miller v. State, 34 Ala.App. 483, 41 So.2d 432. We have attempted to give due consideration to each question presented by this We find no prejudicial error in the record.......
-
Smith v. State
...applied if the prejudicial matter arose on account of a voluntary statement of a witness. In the fairly recent case of Miller v. State, 34 Ala.App. 483, 41 So.2d 432, 434, we reviewed a question presented on the basis of a somewhat analogous circumstance. We held that the voluntary statemen......