Murphy v. State

• Decision Date: 14 November 1895
• Citation: 108 Ala. 10,18 So. 557
• Parties: MURPHY v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

18 So. 557

108 Ala. 10

MURPHY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 14, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Baldwin county; W. S. Anderson, Judge.

John Murphy was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed.

On the trial of the cause, as is shown by the bill of exceptions the state introduced evidence tending to show that Ed Cameron was killed by being shot with a gun on May 24, 1884, about 8 o'clock at night, in his store, in Baldwin county, Ala that the shot was fired from the outside of the building from a musket, through a window in the building; that about dusk on the day of the shooting the defendant was seen near said store with a musket in his hand, and was heard to say "I'll get revenge if this musket will go off before daylight;" that the defendant voluntarily admitted to several persons, at different times and places, that he fired the shot which killed Cameron, while in company with one Jim Early; that defendant was a young man, about 19 or 20 years of age, at the time of the killing; that the deceased and defendant were always friendly; and that the defendant intended to shoot one John D. Cameron, the father of the deceased, who was present at the time of the killing. The defendant introduced evidence tending to show that at the time Cameron was killed the defendant was a small boy, about 14 years of age, and was staying at the house of Jim Early that up to the time of the killing of Cameron the general reputation of the defendant was good; and that his general character for peace and quiet was good. The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that on the evening of the killing he was compelled by Early, who carried a musket to accompany him to Cameron's store; that Early was a dangerous and desperate man, and would not allow the defendant to leave him on his way to the store, although requested to do so, and the defendant was afraid of him; that Early fired the shot that killed Cameron, and that he (the defendant) did not know, up to the time they got to the store, where Early was taking him, or what Early intended doing; that defendant took no part in the killing of Cameron, and was present by compulsion and under duress from Jim Early; and that at no time, while with Early, could he get away from him. On cross-examination of the defendant as a witness he was asked "where he came from to attend the trial of this cause." The defendant objected to this question on the ground that it called for irrelevant and incompetent evidence, and duly excepted to the court's overruling his objection. The defendant answered that he came from the coal mines, where he had been serving a sentence under conviction for burglary. The defendant moved the court to exclude this answer on the ground of its immateriality and incompetency, and because its tendency was to prejudice the defendant's cause. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. Charles Hall, a witness for the state, testified that he was formerly a deputy sheriff of Baldwin county, and that he knew the defendant, and "nearly always had a warrant for defendant's arrest." The defendant objected to the part of the testimony of this witness, as quoted above, as being irrelevant and incompetent, and duly excepted to the court's overruling his objection. Upon defendant's introducing a witness, and asking him to state "whether or not he had a conversation with Jim Early shortly after the killing of Cameron, and, if so, what did Early say about the killing of Cameron, if he said anything?" the state objected to the question, and the court sustained the objection. Thereupon the defendant stated to the court "that he expected to prove by the witness that Jim Early himself shot Cameron, and that Murphy was only present at the time of the shooting because he was compelled to accompany Early, and that he (Murphy) did not take any part or interest in said killing, and that Cameron had poisoned Early's dog, and had hired men to kill Early." The court refused to allow the question to be asked, or to allow this evidence to be admitted, and the defendant excepted to this ruling of the court. Upon the introduction of all the evidence the defendant requested the court to give the following written charge: (1) "The good character, alone, of the defendant, prior to the time when Mr. Cameron was killed, if proved, may, when taken in connection with the other evidence in the case, be sufficient to authorize the jury to acquit the defendant." The bill of exceptions recites: "The court had already, in addition to its general charge on the evidence, given the following special charge, in writing, at the defendant's request: 'Good, character, alone, when taken in connection with the other evidence in the case, may be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, when, without good character, there would be no reasonable doubt."' The court refused to give this charge asked by the defendant, and the defendant duly excepted. Among the other charges asked by the defendant, and to the refusal to give each of which the defendant separately excepted, were the following: (2) "If the jury entertain a reasonable doubt as to the truth or falsity of any material fact constituting a part of the testimony in a criminal case, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of such doubt, no matter how slight may be its influence." (3) "The court charges the jury that if they have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, arising from any part of the evidence, they must acquit the defendant." (4) "Before the jury can find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, they must believe from the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant fired the fatal shot, not in self-defense, which resulted in the death of the deceased, willfully, deliberately, maliciously, and premeditatedly, intending at the time that h...