Moore v. State
| Decision Date | 02 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 576 |
| Citation | 16 Ala.App. 503,79 So. 201 |
| Parties | MOORE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1918
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; O. Kyle, Judge.
Madison Moore was charged with murder in the first degree, was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.
Sample & Kilpatrick, of Cullman, for appellant.
F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and Emmett S. Thigpen, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
Two of the jurors, when called by the court to be qualified as jurors, in answer to the question, "Would you convict on circumstantial evidence?" answered in the negative. The solicitor, acting for the state, accepted one and challenged the other. The defendant could not complain of this. It was a question solely for the state, and the state, with the consent of the court, could waive it either as to one or both. Spicer's Case, 188 Ala. 9, 65 So. 972.
After the state had shown by the witness that the deceased was conscious and talked rationally, and stated that he was going to die, several hours after he had been mortally wounded by a knife in the hands of defendant, from which wound he had been bleeding for hours, until he was weak from loss of blood, and that he did die in about two hours after making the statement, the declaration of deceased that defendant killed him was admissible as a dying declaration. At the time the defendant offered to prove by Claude Moore threats made by the deceased against defendant, there was no evidence tending to show an assault by the deceased on the defendant, such as would justify the admission of evidence of threats. Turner v. State, 160 Ala. 40, 49 So. 828. It was not permissible for the defendant to prove the details of a former difficulty. Fuqua v. State, 2 Ala.App. 51, 56 So. 751. Hence the objection to the question, "Where and what was the nature of that difficulty the night before?" was properly sustained.
The defendant having testified that he did not know whether or not deceased had anything in his hand at the time he struck defendant, the court did not err in refusing to let the defendant testify about what his opinion was concerning it. The court did not err in sustaining an objection to the question propounded to defendant, "State to the jury whether or not you went from there with Clayton for the purpose or with the intention to have a fight." The defendant cannot be permitted to testify as to his intention.
A witness for defendant, without having been qualified as an expert, as to his knowledge of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gwin v. State
...States v. Wells, 525 F.2d 974 (5th Cir.1974). An exclusion cannot be reviewed in the absence of an offer of proof. Moore v. State, 16 Ala.App. 503, 79 So. 201 (1918). Here defense counsel only made a general objection to the court's ruling and did not assign any ground. We find no preserved......
- Woulard v. State
-
Hembree v. State
... ... respectively. The inference of a witness as to the mental ... state of another is rejected where it is conceived rather ... than perceived, and we are not able to say that the statement ... that defendant was "just wild" was based upon ... witness' perception rather than conception. Moore v ... State, 16 Ala. App. 503, 79 So. 201; Hill v ... State, 18 Ala. App. 172, 90 So. 62; Bell v ... State, 140 Ala. 57, 37 So. 281 ... Mrs ... Matilda Latham, a witness for the state, testified over ... objection of the defendant, that on the afternoon before the ... killing ... ...
-
Turner v. State, 3 Div. 147
...525 F.2d 974 (5th Cir.1976). "An exclusion cannot be reviewed in the absence of an offer of proof." Gwin, supra. See Moore v. State, 16 Ala.App. 503, 79 So. 201 (1918). Here, appellant's counsel failed to make an offer of proof. Moreover, the only comment appellant's counsel made after the ......