Newman v. State, 4 Div. 983.

• Decision Date: 30 June 1933
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 983.
• Citation: 149 So. 724,25 Ala.App. 526
• Parties: NEWMAN v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

149 So. 724

25 Ala.App. 526

NEWMAN v. STATE.

4 Div. 983.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 30, 1933

Rehearing Denied Sept. 12, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J. S. Williams, Judge.

Lawson Newman was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

T. M Patterson, of Clayton, for appellant.

Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Thos. Seay Lawson, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD Judge.

The deceased was the wife of Caesar Palmer, who was a tenant of defendant living on his farm, in Barbour county. The deceased, her husband, and Pearla Palmer, mother of Caesar were all living in the house together, and were cultivating a farm for defendant. On the morning of June 7, 1932, defendant went to the house of deceased and demanded that the three go to work in the farm. Caesar, his wife and mother all being present, refused to go to work unless defendant would furnish them with something to eat, they telling defendant that the only food they had was one bushel of meal. Defendant said: "You are going to work, or else." In this conversation the deceased spoke and said: "Yes sir, we haven't got a thing in the world only that meal" and defendant replied to her: "Hush, I'll see you later." At this time the sun was about one hour high. At that time defendant told Caesar to move, but not to move anything out of the house. Later in the day defendant again saw Caesar as he was coming across defendant's field. Caesar ran, and defendant ran after him with a pistol. Caesar outran defendant and got away.

The evidence for the state further tended to prove that defendant was drinking, and that later in the day, about 4 p. m., defendant again went to the tenant's house and forced the two women to start to the field for the purpose of hoeing some peanuts, and on the way deceased resisted, defendant struck deceased with a stick, and then shot her with the pistol and dropped her in a ditch on the side of the railroad track, where she was found by the sheriff. The evidence for the state further tends to prove that defendant was in and around the house where deceased and her family lived all that day, from the time he first came in the morning until the killing in the afternoon. The evidence on the part of defendant tended to prove a case of self-defense.

In a prosecution for homicide, evidence of connected acts and transactions leading up to and explanatory of the killing is admissible. These acts and circumstances need not necessarily be a part of the res gestæ, in the sense that they become a part of the crime itself, but they are admissible where they throw any light upon the actions, animus, or intent of the defendant, and in this case the mental attitude of defendant at the time of the fatal difficulty as bearing on the question of freedom from fault and required by defendant's plea of self-defense becomes very pertinent. Way v. State, 155 Ala. 52, 46 So. 273.

We do not depart from the well-established rule obtaining in this state that details of a former difficulty may not be given in evidence on the trial of a homicide case, but here this killing was...