Moore v. State
| Decision Date | 19 June 1912 |
| Citation | 59 So. 189,4 Ala.App. 65 |
| Parties | MOORE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied July 11, 1912.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Perry County; B. M. Miller, Judge.
General Moore, Jr., was convicted of assault, and he appeals. Affirmed.
R. B Evins, of Greensboro, for appellant.
R. C Brickell, Atty. Gen. and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The court, over the defendant's objection, permitted the state to prove, by the person alleged to have been assaulted that the defendant, General Moore, Jr., is the son of General Moore, Sr.; but when the witness was then asked if he had had some trouble with the defendant's father on the night before the assault the court sustained the defendant's objection to the question. The evidence as to the name of the defendant's father may not have been relevant or material; but it is not conceived how the proof of this isolated fact could have been made the basis of any inference unfavorable to the defendant. If there was error in the admission of that evidence, we are satisfied that it involved no injury or prejudice to the defendant; and therefore that ruling does not constitute a ground of reversal. Code, § 6264.
The evidence as to the defendant's connection with the offense with which he was charged was circumstantial. The assault was committed shortly after 4 o'clock Sunday morning by some one firing a gun from a second-story window of a hotel building, which at the time was not in use, and was undergoing repairs. There was evidence tending to prove that the defendant had been at work in that building during the preceding week and up to Friday before the shooting; that at half past 1 o'clock that Sunday morning, or less than three hours before the shooting occurred, he was seen going in the direction of the hotel; that shortly after the shooting one man's footprints were discovered near a back door of the hotel, which was found open, leading to and from that door, and on the steps to the second story and over some plastering which had been thrown near the rear wall of the building; that about an hour after this discovery was made the defendant was taken to the jail, and on an examination being made of his shoes one of them was found to have some plaster on it, and that this shoe exactly fitted in the track found in the plaster. In the face of such evidence, we do not consider that we would be at all warranted in affirming that the general affirmative charge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hicks v. State
...put them over the tracks made thereby. Clark v. State, 240 Ala. 65, 197 So. 23; Morris v. State, 124 Ala. 44, 27 So. 336; Moore v. State, 4 Ala.App. 65, 59 So. 189. and circumstances tending prima facie to prove corpus delicti may be aided by admissions or confessions of accused duly admitt......
-
Cunningham v. State
... ... State, 124 Ala. 44, 27 ... So. 336, and Perry v. State, 87 Ala. 30, 6 So. 425 ... Of ... course, the weight to be given to this evidence was for the ... jury, and, although some of it may have been of little force, ... it was nevertheless a question for the jury. Moore v ... State, 4 Ala.App. 67, 59 So. 189 ... [69 So. 985] ... Some of ... the witnesses testifying to the similarity of the tracks also ... stated, in describing the peculiarities of the tracks, that ... they were "similar," or the same, in that it was a ... track in which "the ... ...
-
Butler v. State
... ... for the reason that the direction of the schoolhouse from ... Butler's place appears to be immaterial, the action of ... the court in this connection was clearly not prejudicial to ... the defendant, and was therefore not error. Moore v ... State, 4 Ala.App. 65, 59 So. 189 ... The ... error, if any, in refusing to allow the witness Jeffcoat to ... state what he heard just before the difficulty and the ... condition of the deceased and his companion at the time was ... rendered harmless by reason of the fact ... ...
-
Hawkins v. State
...fit the shoe prints without any pressure being applied on the boots. The boots were admitted in evidence without objection. Moore v. State, 4 Ala.App. 65, 59 So. 189; Green v. State, 42 Ala.App. 439, 167 So.2d 694, certiorari denied, 277 Ala. 698, 167 So.2d Appellant and his witnesses testi......