Nobles v. State
Decision Date | 17 March 1942 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 395. |
Citation | 30 Ala.App. 434,7 So.2d 770 |
Parties | NOBLES v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied April 7, 1942.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; F. W. Hare, Judge.
C L. Hybart, of Monroeville, for appellant.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Wm H. Loeb and J. W. Arbuthnot Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
The homicide, complained of in the indictment, appears from all the evidence to have been a most unfortunate one, and grew out of a trivial and unimportant matter. So far as the record shows, there were no hard feelings or ill will existing between the deceased and the defendant, nor had there ever been.
It appears that the son of deceased had been working for appellant and on "pay day" was due the sum of $14.95. That on that day defendant paid him the sum of $10 and gave him a paper showing for the balance of $4.95. On the day of the difficulty defendant and his son were approaching the office of W. T. Smith Lumber Company, in Fountain, Monroe County, they were travelling in a pick up truck and upon nearing said office that deceased was talking to Mr. Orchard and defendant testified:
There was other evidence of the same import as the foregoing.
A succinct "statement of the facts" is incorporated in brief of the Attorney General and, as there appears, is as follows:
Appellant is correct in his insistence that the testimony showing the killing of deceased also had the tendency to show beyond peradventure that in striking the single blow he had no intention of killing him, and the immediate subsequent conduct of defendant tends to bear out this insistence. However, as stated by the Attorney General, supra, a jury question was presented by the testimony. In submitting this case to the jury the trial court delivered an excellent oral charge, full and complete and fair. The court also gave at request of defendant numerous special written charges which were in line and of the same import as the court's oral charge.
Appellant insists, however, there was error in the action of the court in refusing his special written charge No. 13, which reads as follows: "The Court charges the jury that if they find from the evidence that the deceased, at the time the blow was struck was attempting to make an assault on the defendant and that the defendant, in resisting said assault used force not greatly disproportionate to the character of the assault, and death accidentally resulted, this would be self-defense, and the jury should acquit him."
In support of the foregoing insistence appellant states: "This charge was approved as being a correct charge in the case of Martin v. State, 90 Ala. 602, 8 So. 858 , opinion by Chief Justice Stone."
The two charges are identical, as insisted, but appellant overlooked the fact that the Martin case, supra, on this particular point was overruled and held to be erroneous by the Supreme Court in the case of Williams v. State, 140 Ala. 10, 15, 37 So. 228; see, also, Diamond v. State, 22 Ala. App. 410, 116 So. 312.
On the trial of this case the defendant introduced a large number of witnesses, all of whom testified that he is a man of good character. This evidence was without dispute.
At the close of defendant's case, the State was allowed to offer evidence of the general reputation of deceased. This was done over the objection and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carroll v. State
...under different conditions. Under these circumstances defense counsel was not being required to do a useless thing, Nobles v. State, 30 Ala.App. 434, 7 So.2d 770, cert. denied, 242 Ala. 643, 7 So.2d 773 (1942), by objecting to each separate admission made by the The entire defense was that ......
-
Anderson v. State
...court had been made fully aware of the ground of that objection. Wilson v. State, 37 Ala.App. 644, 73 So.2d 925 (1954); Nobles v. State, 30 Ala.App. 434, 7 So.2d 770, cert. denied 242 Ala. 643, 7 So.2d 773 (1942); National Casualty Company v. Dunn, 209 Ala. 484, 96 So. 576 A general objecti......
-
Farmers Co-op. Warehouse Ass'n v. Shikles
...the quoted rule has no application. Neither are the holdings in Connelly v. State, 30 Ala.App. 91, 1 So.2d 606, and Nobles v. State, 30 Ala.App. 434, 7 So.2d 770, based on factual The application for rehearing is overruled. ...
-
Lowe v. State
...213 Ala. 554, 105 So. 718; Connelly v. State, 30 Ala.App. 91, 1 So.2d 606, certiorari denied 241 Ala. 132, 1 So.2d 608; Nobles v. State, 30 Ala.App. 434, 7 So.2d 770, certiorari denied 242 Ala. 643, 7 So.2d Affirmed. All the Justices concur. ...