Nelson v. State
| Decision Date | 08 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 267 |
| Citation | 13 Ala.App. 28,68 So. 573 |
| Parties | NELSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied May 11, 1915
Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.
Fred Nelson was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Riddle & Ellis, of Columbiana, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and J.P. Mudd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Being on trial charged with murder in the first degree, the defendant admitted the killing, and sought to justify it as an act of self-defense. When being examined as a witness in his own behalf, the defendant was very properly permitted to testify that on the day previous to the killing he and the deceased had a difficulty; whereupon the defendant's counsel asked him the following questions:
"State whether or not in that difficulty he [deceased] drew a gun on you [[[defendant]," "State whether or not Pres Horton [the deceased] shot at you the day before you killed him," and "I will ask you to state if, in October some time, Pres Horton [the deceased] came to your house and drew a gun on you and said he would kill you, in the presence of Robert Davis, Floyd Bell, and George Locket."
To the refusal of the court to permit the defendant to answer each of these questions, on objection thereto being made by the solicitor, the defendant separately objected, and reserved an exception to the ruling of the court.
The specific ground of objection interposed by the solicitor to these questions propounded by defendant's counsel was that they called for details of a former difficulty. The facts that on the day before the killing the deceased in a difficulty with the defendant drew a "gun" on him, that on that day the deceased shot at the defendant, and that in October, prior to the killing in December, deceased drew a "gun" on the defendant, and at the same time, in the presence of several other persons, threatened to kill him, were matters the defendant was entitled to have admitted in evidence. These were not matters of a nature that could properly be excluded under the rule against admitting details or going into the merits of former difficulties, but were only such facts as showed the general nature and gravity of the former difficulties or altercations, and were admissible for the purpose of showing who was at fault in bringing on the fatal rencounter, and, too, for the purpose of aiding the jury in arriving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dodd v. State, 7 Div. 836.
...in the subsequent difficulty. Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 105, 14 So. 766; Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24, 30, 59 So. 270, 272; Nelson v. State, 13 Ala.App. 28, 68 So. 573; Folkes v. State, 17 Ala.App. 119, 82 So. 567; Thornton v. State, 18 Ala.App. 225, 90 So. 66. On the other hand, the State is ......
-
Hoomes v. State
... ... not going into the details of the altercation against the ... rule appertaining ... Proof ... that on the day before the killing the decedent, in a ... difficulty with the defendant, drew a gun on him was held ... admissible in Nelson v. State, 13 Ala.App. 28, 68 ... To like ... effect is the holding in Stinson v. Richardson, 239 ... Ala. 161, 194 So. 508. See also, Woods v. State, 20 ... Ala.App. 200, 101 So. 314; Wright v. State, 19 ... Ala.App. 562, 99 So. 52; Thornton v. State, 18 ... Ala.App. 225, 90 So. 66; ... ...
-
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Hubbard
... ... Travis v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 162 Ala ... 605, 50 So. 108. Under this state of facts the plaintiff was ... rightfully in the mine on the invitation of the defendant, ... and it owed him the duty of using reasonable or ... ...
-
Buffalow v. State
...a threat. *** This was not going into the details or merits of the altercation, but only showing its general nature." In Nelson v. State, 13 Ala. App. 28, 68 So. 573, substantially the same question was presented as here, that court, speaking by Pelham, P.J., observed: "The facts that on th......