Milton v. State, 6 Div. 339

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtTHOMAS, J.
Citation105 So. 209,213 Ala. 449
PartiesMILTON v. STATE.
Decision Date07 May 1925
Docket Number6 Div. 339

105 So. 209

213 Ala. 449

MILTON
v.
STATE.

6 Div. 339

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 7, 1925


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.

THOMAS, J.

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:

"The question asked, gentlemen, by the solicitor, I exclude from your consideration, and ask that you do not even consider that the question was asked. Of course, gentlemen questions so asked are submitted first to the court to say whether they are legitimate questions [105 So. 210] or not. The court rules that this is an illegitimate question, and should not be asked, and excludes it from your consideration, and asks you to pay no attention whatsoever to the question as asked. Do not consider it as having any weight or bearing upon the jury in this case. Rid your mind of it in every way possible. Decide the issues of the case solely upon the evidence and the evidence alone, and do not allow yourselves to be influenced or prejudiced or in any way biased by any question asked. The questions asked, gentlemen which are without legitimate issues of the case, when the court excludes them, should have no bearing whatsoever upon the case nor any weight in determining the issues of the case."

Counsel for defendant then said, in the nature of a reply to this statement by the presiding judge:

"Now, in order that I may get the record straight on it I wish to renew my motion for a continuance on account of that improper and prejudicial statement of the solicitor. I didn't object to it, because I did not feel as though any statement that the court might
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Burns v. State, 6 Div. 965.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 6, 1932
    ...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; Loeb v. Webster, 213 Ala. 99, 104 So. 25; Owens v. State, 215 Ala. 42, 109 So. 109; Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co. ......
  • Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cornett, 6 Div. 322
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 22, 1925
    ...improper 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 Ala. 36, 95 So. 171. The arguments to which exc......
  • Jarvis v. State, 1 Div. 527.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 25, 1930
    ...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. 489; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50, 93 So. 706......
  • Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of A. F. & A. M. of Alabama (Colored) v. Callier, 1 Div. 717.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 24, 1932
    ...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. In the examination of the witness, D. N. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Burns v. State, 6 Div. 965.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 6, 1932
    ...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; Loeb v. Webster, 213 Ala. 99, 104 So. 25; Owens v. State, 215 Ala. 42, 109 So. 109; Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co. ......
  • Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cornett, 6 Div. 322
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 22, 1925
    ...improper 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 Ala. 36, 95 So. 171. The arguments to which exc......
  • Jarvis v. State, 1 Div. 527.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 25, 1930
    ...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. 489; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50, 93 So. 706......
  • Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of A. F. & A. M. of Alabama (Colored) v. Callier, 1 Div. 717.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 24, 1932
    ...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. In the examination of the witness, D. N. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT