Moseley v. State
| Decision Date | 06 June 1895 |
| Citation | 17 So. 932,107 Ala. 74 |
| Parties | MOSELEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; Thomas M. Arrington, Judge.
Robert Moseley appeals from a conviction of murder. Affirmed.
The appellant was indicted and tried for the murder of one Jerry Stewart, was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. The first of the rulings of the lower court to which exceptions were reserved, and which are reviewed on this appeal, are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant was guilty as charged. There was evidence introduced in behalf of the defendant tending to show that Stewart, the deceased, was a man of violent and turbulent character, and that he was regarded as a fighting, quarrelsome man, and that he had threatened the life of the defendant. Upon the introduction of all the evidence the defendant requested the court to give the jury the following written charge, and duly excepted to the court's refusal to give said charge as asked "Where the character of a man is notoriously turbulent and aggressive, and his threats are brutal, ferocious, and recently made, his armed entry upon the premises of his assailant might readily be inferred by a jury as being of so hostile a character as to place the defendant in imminent danger."
John G Winter, for appellant.
W. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree. There are but two exceptions in the record to the ruling of the trial court. The defendant moved the court to quash the venire upon the ground that the court, of its own motion, had excused from attendance, without his knowledge or consent and in his absence, certain jurors summoned on the regular panel, whose names were on the special venire served on him from which the jury for his trial was to be impaneled. The order of the court was "that said jurors be excused from further attendance for reasons deemed sufficient by the court." The authority of the court to excuse a juror by a similar order arose in the case of Fariss v. State, 85 Ala. 1, 4 So. 679, and it was said, that "it must be presumed that judges, in excusing jurors, act on correct principles, and discharge them only for good and sufficient reasons," and it was decided that the court committed no reversible error in excusing the jurors. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stinson v. State
... ... which the capital cases were set, to excuse jurors drawn and ... summoned on the regular juries, "for good and sufficient ... reasons then made known to the Court," and usually ... entered of record. Fariss' Case, 85 Ala. 1, 4 So. 679; ... Plant's Case, 140 Ala. 52, 37 So. 159; Moseley's ... Case, 107 Ala. 74, 17 So. 932; Maxwell's Case, 89 Ala ... 150, 7 So. 824; Thomas v. State, 124 Ala. 48, 27 So ... 315; Williams v. State, 144 Ala. 14, 40 So. 405 ... [135 So. 573] ... In ... Fariss' Case, first above cited, it was observed: ... "In Parsons v. State, 22 ... ...
-
Stevens v. Union R. Co.
...if the record does show no injury to the complaining party, the judgment should not be reversed. Indeed, in the later case of Mosely v. State (1894) 107 Ala. 74, 17 South. 932, the court say: "The defendant moved the court to quash the venire upon the ground that the court of its own motion......
-
Williams v. State
...the Code of 1896, and we are satisfied with the former decisions upon the question. Plant's Case, 140 Ala. 52, 37 So. 159; Moseley's Case, 107 Ala. 74, 17 So. 932; Case, 89 Ala. 150, 7 So. 824; Thomas' Case, 124 Ala. 48, 27 So. 315; Fariss' Case, 85 Ala. 1, 4 So. 679 The last cited overrule......
-
Thomas v. State
... ... [27 So. 320.] ... or consent of the defendant, and in his absence, ... notwithstanding their names were on the venire served upon ... him, is not error, as the order of the court shows that they ... were excused for "sufficient cause shown to the ... court." Moseley v. State, 107 Ala. 74, 17 So ... 932, and authorities therein cited ... Nor can ... it be affirmed that the court committed an error in excusing ... the special jurors Murrell and Lide from further attendance ... upon the court on the day preceding the trial of this cause, ... on ... ...