Mitchell v. State
Decision Date | 21 May 1902 |
Citation | 133 Ala. 65,32 So. 132 |
Parties | MITCHELL v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Marshall county; J. A. Bilbro, Judge.
D. P Mitchell was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and he appeals. Affirmed.
The appellant in this case, D. P. Mitchell, was indicted jointly with his two sons, for the murder of one Dave Thompson by shooting him with a gun, was tried separately and convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and sentenced to the penitentiary for five years.
On the trial the evidence for the state tended to show that as the defendant, in company with his two sons, was passing by the house of the deceased, Dave Thompson, said Thompson ran across the road towards his house and as he got near his porch the defendant fired upon and killed him. That the defendant was near the gate opening into Thompson's yard at the time the fatal shot was fired. There was some evidence on the part of the state tending to show that there was a conspiracy between the defendant and his two sons for the killing of such Thompson. That Thompson had a few days prior to his killing snapped a gun at one of the sons of the defendant.
The evidence for the defendant tended to show that a short time before the killing, the two sons of the defendant who were jointly indicted with him, started towards their home by Thompson's house; that when they got to Thompson's house they saw his son carrying a gun to him, and that thereupon one of the sons turned back and went to where the defendant was; that thereupon the defendant went with him to Thompson's house carrying his gun; that as Thompson saw the defendant coming, he ran across the road to his house calling to his daughter to bring him his gun quickly; that the defendant saw Thompson's daughter carrying the gun to him, and that when Thompson was within 10 or 15 steps from his daughter, the defendant fired upon him. There was evidence introduced on the part of the defendant showing that Thompson had made threats against the defendant and his sons and had stated that he was going to kill him. The daughter and his two sons testified as witnesses for the state. There was evidence introduced as to the character of the deceased. This is sufficiently shown in the opinion. There was evidence tending to show that after the homicide the defendant fled to Marion county.
Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the defendant requested the court to give several written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of said charges. Charges 1 to 7 inclusive relate to murder and it is therefore, unnecessary to set them out in detail. The other charges, to the refusal to give each of which the defendant separately excepted, were the following: "(10) The court charges the jury that in considering the testimony of Maggie, Francis and David Thompson, they must weigh it in the light of the fact that they are the children of the deceased, and of the material interest they feel in the case." ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parsons v. State
...not reversible error to refuse such a charge since it would be argumentative. Robertson v. State, 162 Ala. 30, 50 So. 345; Mitchell v. State, 133 Ala. 65, 32 So. 132; Horn v. State, 102 Ala. 144(8), 15 So. 278; Sanderson v. State, 236 Ala. 27, 181 So. 508. The charges 55, 58 and 64, held in......
- Braham v. State
-
Poellnitz v. State
...have the witness explain what he meant by his previous testimony, and we deem the evidence admissible for this purpose. See Mitchell v. State, 133 Ala. 65, 32 So. 132. V We next consider appellant's claim that the judgment entry is insufficient to support his conviction. The judgment entry,......
-
Bluett v. State
...40 So. 568. Charge 2, given at the request of the state, correctly states the law. Evans v. State, 109 Ala. 12, 19 So. 535; Mitchell v. State, 133 Ala. 66, 32 So. 132; Harrison v. State, 144 Ala. 20, 40 So. Charge 3, given at the request of the state, is probably confusing; but the court ca......