Moton v. State

• Decision Date: 30 June 1915
• Docket Number: 131
• Citation: 69 So. 235,13 Ala.App. 43
• Parties: MOTON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

69 So. 235

13 Ala.App. 43

MOTON v. STATE.

No. 131

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 30, 1915

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bibb County; B.M. Miller, Judge.

Jim Boy Moton was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The evidence tends to show that the defendant killed Amos Meredith by shooting him with a pistol; the killing occurring at the Louisville & Nashville station at Blocton, in Bibb county, soon after the defendant and the deceased had gotten off an excursion train at that point. There was no dispute about who did the killing, but there was a dispute as to the circumstances; the defendant offering some evidence tending to show self-defense.

The following charges were refused the defendant:

(1) I charge you that, if after looking at all the evidence in this case your minds are left in such a state of doubt or uncertainty that you cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not the defendant acted upon the well-founded and reasonable belief that it was necessary to take the life of the deceased to save himself from great bodily harm or death or that he shot before such impending necessity arose, then this is such a doubt as will entitle this defendant to an acquittal, and you should so find.

(2) If the jury believes from the evidence that the conduct of the deceased was such as to reasonably lead the defendant to believe that the deceased was about to inflict some bodily harm on his person, and that the defendant acted on such belief of great bodily harm, and fired the shot at the deceased and killed him, then you should acquit the defendant.

(25) If you believe from the evidence in this case that the defendant was free from fault in bringing on the difficulty and that when the fatal shot was fired the defendant believed that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm, he had the right to protect himself from danger of death or great bodily harm and shoot the defendant.

C.D Logan, of Centerville, for appellant.

W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and W.H. Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PELHAM P.J.

The order of the court for a special venire as set out in the transcript shows a compliance with the statute in all particulars (Acts 1909, p. 305), and, no question being shown to have been raised before the trial court with respect to the regular or special venire, or the organization of the juries, it is not necessary, or, in fact, permissible, that the transcript should contain copies of the venires or show the organization of the juries (Supreme Court practice rule 27, 175 Ala. xx, 61 South. vii), and no question can be raised here as to these matters that was not ruled upon in the court below.

It would have been entirely permissible to show by the witness Andrew Williams that the defendant made threats against the deceased just prior to the killing, but, as the witness answered the solicitor's question seeking to elicit testimony showing threats in the negative, there could be, manifestly, no prejudicial error in the court's action in overruling the defendant's objection to the question.

The solicitor's objection to the question propounded to the defendant by his counsel when being examined as a witness in his own behalf, "Why did you leave...