Milton v. State
Decision Date | 07 May 1925 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 339 |
Citation | 105 So. 209,213 Ala. 449 |
Parties | MILTON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 25, 1925
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; William E. Fort, Judge.
John Milton, alias Williams, alias Wilson, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Phil A Tharp and Frank Bainbridge, both of Birmingham, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Jim Davis, Sol., and Willard Drake Asst. Sol., both of Birmingham, for the State.
A proper predicate was laid for the introduction of the confession of the defendant. Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50, 93 So. 706; Curry v. State, 203 Ala. 239 82 So. 489; Fincher v. State, 211 Ala. 388, 100 So 657.
The crime for which the defendant was being tried was admitted to have been committed by some person and the defendant was in close proximity thereto at the time of the homicide. The only question of fact was the identity of this defendant with the commission of that crime. He was a convict and on that day was a "trusty," who escaped at or a short time before the time of the homicide, and was arrested and brought back from Ohio. It was while being returned to Birmingham under arrest that he made confession of the crime to the officers testifying on behalf of the state.
The solicitor, in cross-examination of the defendant, said to him: "You say you were arrested in Ohio?" The defendant answered: "Yes, sir." After examination as to the place of the arrest in Ohio, the solicitor then asked the defendant: "They arrested you up there for attacking a white woman, didn't they?" Before the question was answered objection was made and a motion for a continuance of the cause was predicated thereon. The court sustained the objection to the question, which was unanswered, and overruled the motion for "a continuance of the cause." Defendant reserved exception to this last ruling. Thereupon the court instructed the jury as follows:
Counsel for defendant then said, in the nature of a reply to this statement by the presiding judge:
To which the court replied, "Well, I will overrule that," and again an exception was reserved by defendant.
Counsel for the defense say, in argument, that the trial court did all that could be done "to eradicate it from the minds of the jury"; and the question is propounded to this court by counsel whether the jury could, "under any circumstances, forget so ruinous and poisonous a thing as this." The cases from this court of Tannehill v. State, 159 Ala. 51, 48 So. 662, and Moulton v. State, 199 Ala. 411, 416, 74 So. 454, are cited. In the last case there were exceptions taken to remarks of counsel and those of the court; and it was held the remarks of counsel and those of the court in the oral charge created a "general atmosphere" that was prejudicial and ineradicable and constituted reversible error. The exception in the Tannehill Case was likewise taken to an aggravated and prejudicial argument of counsel made as an appeal to race prejudice, and which was held to be error.
The question challenged as being within the influence of said cases was propounded by way of cross-examination of the defendant, was promptly checked by the court, and immediate and explicit instructions were given to the jury to disregard the same. In the language of B.R., L. & P. Co. v. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61 So. 80, Ann.Cas.1916A, 543, "each case of this character must be decided upon its own merits," there is "no horizontal rule" that may be applied, and "much will depend upon the issues, the parties, and the general atmosphere of the particular case." Standridge v. Martin, 203 Ala. 486, 84 So. 266. The test is, is it probably beyond the reach of timely and proper remedial action by the court? We are of opinion, and so hold, that there was no reversible error in declining defendant's motion for a continuance because of the attempted cross-examination in question.
The question propounded by the state to the witness Dial, "I will ask you if, a few days after this defendant was brought back, in the county jail, you didn't have a conversation with him in regard to him coming by your house on a horse, and if he didn't say to you that he did come by there, but that he had on overalls and a blue shirt, and had passed your girls down the road," was pursuant to the predicate theretofore laid for impeachment of defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, by said witness Dial, as to the time, place, and matter in question, denied by defendant.
Counsel for appel...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cornett
... ... defendant in such interstate commerce, plaintiff's ... intestate was killed in Jefferson county, state of Alabama, ... as follows: A railroad car ran into, upon, or over ... plaintiff's intestate, and injured and killed him ... "Plaintiff further ... arguments of counsel is B.R.L. & P. Co. v. Gonzalez, ... 183 Ala. 273, 61 So. 80, Ann.Cas.1916A, 543; Milton v ... State, (Ala.Sup.) 105 So. 209; Ala. Power Co. v ... Goodwin, 106 So. 239. There is no iron-bound rule ... Anderson v. State, 209 ... ...
-
Burns v. State
...own merits depending upon the issues, the parties, and the particular case. Bachelor v. State, 216 Ala. 356, 113 So. 67; Milton v. State, 213 Ala. 449, 105 So. 209; v. Webster, 213 Ala. 99, 104 So. 25; Owens v. State, 215 Ala. 42, 109 So. 109; Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Gonzal......
-
Jarvis v. State
...and motion to exclude, which were overruled by the court without error. Fincher v. State, 211 Ala. 388, 393, 100 So. 657; Milton v. State, 213 Ala. 449, 105 So. 209; Curry v. State, 203 Ala. 239, 82 so. Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50, 93 So. 706, Bir......
-
Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of A. F. & A. M. of Alabama (Colored) v. Callier
... ... jurisdiction, the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Ancient ... Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Alabama does ... hereby establish the following by-laws for the regulation ... and government of the Endowment Department with the ... State, 170 Ala. 72, 54 So. 494; Stone ... v. State, 105 Ala. 60, 17 So. 114; Carter v ... State, 219 Ala. 670, 673, 123 So. 50; Milton v ... State, 213 Ala. 449, 105 So. 209; Loeb v ... Webster, 213 Ala. 99, 104 So. 25; Hanye v ... State, 211 Ala. 555, 101 So. 108 ... ...