Naugher v. State
| Decision Date | 19 December 1912 |
| Parties | NAUGHER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court; H. B. Foster, Judge.
Wert Naugher was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and he appeals. Affirmed.
Charge A is as follows: "The court charges that if the state's witnesses have exhibited prejudice or anger against the defendant, and satisfied you that they have not testified truly and are not worthy of belief, and you think their testimony should be disregarded, you may disregard it altogether."
Rice & Van de Voort, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
R. C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
A proper predicate was shown for the admission of the dying declaration testified to by the witness J. P. Ellidge. The witness testified that the declarant, while confined to his bed with a serious knife wound inflicted in the abdomen, from the effects of which he died in about six weeks, told him that he was "going to die," that he "never expected to get well," and wanted to make the statement before he died. This was sufficient to show that the declarant was impressed with the belief that death was impending, and that he could not possibly recover, and constituted sufficient proof to comply with the rule as to a proper predicate to make the dying declaration admissible. The statement made by declarant, "I am going to die," distinguishes this case from Titus' Case, 117 Ala. 16, 23 So. 77, cited by appellant. McEwen v State, 152 Ala. 38, 42, 44 So. 619. See, also, Johnson v. State, 169 Ala. 10, 53 So. 769; Heninburg v. State, 151 Ala. 26, 43 So. 959; Brown v. State, 150 Ala. 25, 43 So. 194; Gregory v. State, 148 Ala. 566, 42 So. 829; Walker v. State, 146 Ala. 45, 41 So. 878; Walker v. State, 139 Ala. 56, 35 So. 1011; Ex parte Key, 59 So. 331.
Charge A differs from the charges of a similar character passed on in the cases of Hammond v. State, 147 Ala. 79, 41 So. 761, Jackson v. State, 57 So. 594, and Burkett v. State, 154 Ala. 19, 45 So. 682, in that the charges in those cases are limited to any state's witness who had, through an exhibition of prejudice, bias, or anger, satisfied the jury that he had not testified truly and was not worthy of belief. Charge A has a sweeping reference to, and is predicated upon, all of the state's witnesses, and the court cannot be put in error for refusing this charge, unless all of the state's witnesses in their testimony evidenced some show of prejudice or anger against the defendant. It cannot be said that this is true, for there is no indication or intimation to be gathered from the evidence of some of the state's witnesses that they exhibited any prejudice, anger, or ill will against the defendant. No contention was made on the trial to that effect with respect to all of the state's witnesses, and no attempt to show it as to all of them. The charge, viewed in the light of the evidence, had a tendency to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCray v. State, 1 Div. 664
...against the defendant. However, no such contention was made as to the other State's witnesses, and under the holding in Naugher v. State, 6 Ala.App. 3, 60 So. 458, if for no other reason, the charge was properly Other charges refused to defendant, which assert correct propositions of law, w......
-
Chestnut v. State
...res gestae. McCoombs v. State, 151 Ala. 7, 43 So. 965. Charge No. 1 is abstract, in that it includes all the state's witnesses. Naugher v. State, 60 So. 458. It not clear what is meant by the language used in charge No. 3, "and the jury think their testimony on these beliefs should be disre......
-
Williams v. State
...written charge 4 is abstract, in that it includes all of the state's witnesses, and was properly refused in this case. Naugher v. State, 6 Ala. App. 3, 60 So. 458; Chestnut v. State, 7 Ala. App. 72, 61 So. Wright v. State, 156 Ala. 109, 47 So. 201. As to any witness who was shown by the tes......
-
Stinson v. State
...has often been approved, more than once in the exact language of this charge. Adams v. State, 175 Ala. 8, 57 So. 591; Naugher v. State, 6 Ala.App. 3, 60 So. 458; Hammond v. State, 147 Ala. 79, 41 So. Burkett v. State, 154 Ala. 19, 45 So. 682; Chestnutt v. State, 7 Ala.App. 72, 61 So. 609. T......