Odom v. State
| Decision Date | 07 June 1911 |
| Citation | 55 So. 820,172 Ala. 383 |
| Parties | ODOM v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Mobile; O. J. Semmes, Judge.
J Lawrence Odom was convicted of murder in the first degree sentenced to death, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Charge 7, referred to, is as follows: "The court charges the jury that, before you should convict the defendant, the hypothesis of his guilt should flow naturally from the fact proven, and be consistent with all the facts in the case."
Webb & McAlpine, for appellant.
Robert C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree. The pleas were, not guilty, and not guilty by reason of insanity.
The witness Humphreys, who is not a physician, testified about his experience with insane people in taking them from Mobile to the insane hospitals on many occasions, to his observing their manner, etc., and to his knowledge about what constitutes a paranoiac, etc., and said that he had talked with the defendant "several months ago for about a half hour." Besides the fact that the matter of allowing a nonexpert witness to express an opinion that a party is insane is largely within the discretion of the court, this witness was not shown to be an expert, and it was not shown that his acquaintance with the defendant was of that intimate character which would render him competent as a nonexpert to testify to the insanity of the defendant. Ford v State, 71 Ala. 386, 397; Dominick's Case, 124 Ala. 557, 563, 564, 27 So. 841; Braham v. State, 143 Ala. 28, 41, 38 So. 919; In re Carmichael, 36 Ala. 514, 523; State v. Crisp, 126 Mo. 605, 29 S.W. 699. Consequently there was no error in the sustaining of the objections to the testimony of said witness as to the appearance and symptoms of a paranoiac, and as to the insanity of the defendant.
Nor was there any reversible error in the remark of the court to the effect that he would send the witness to jail for contempt if he persisted in answering questions to which the court had sustained objections. Referring to the same principles, and to the further principle that the rule as to a nonexpert's testifying to sanity is not identical with that in regard to his testifying to insanity, there was no error in allowing the witness, Patrick, who had known the defendant for twelve or fourteen years, meeting him frequently, to testify that he had never...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shouse v. State
...28 is not stated in the same verbiage as the instructions which were approved in Griffin v. State, 150 Ala. 49, 43 So. 197; Odom v. State, 172 Ala. 383, 55 So. 820; Jones v. State, 20 Ala.App. 96, 101 So. 67; and Davis v. State, 23 Ala.App. 419, 126 So. 414. It is very likely that this vari......
-
Wise v. State
... ... witness he must have had such intimate acquaintance with ... defendant as to support an inference that the witness would ... probably have observed it if defendant were insane to any ... substantial degree. National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v ... Hannon, 212 Ala. 184, 101 So. 892; Odom v. State, ... 172 Ala. 383, 55 So. 820; Jones v. State, 181 Ala ... 83, 61 So. 434 ... There ... is also this principle in respect to an expression of the ... opinion of a non-expert. We cannot give expression of an ... opinion that defendant was insane without first giving the ... ...
-
National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Hannon
...198 Ala. 570, 73 So. 921; Barnett v. Freeman, 197 Ala. 145, 72 So. 395; Johnston v. Johnston, 174 Ala. 220, 57 So. 450; Odom v. State, 172 Ala. 383, 55 So. 820; Pritchard v. Fowler, 171 Ala. 662, 55 So. Jones v. State, 181 Ala. 63, 61 So. 434; Dominick v. Randolph, 124 Ala. 557, 27 So. 481;......
-
Ex parte Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.
... ... statute. Kirby v. Commissioners' Court, 186 Ala ... 611, 65 So. 163; Ex parte State, 181 Ala. 4, 61 So. 53; Ex ... parte Dickens, 162 Ala. 272, 50 So. 218; McCulley v ... Cunningham, 96 Ala. 583, 11 So. 694; McAllilley v ... conclusions as determined by said judge." We think the ... word "facts," as used, is equivalent to the proven ... facts of the case. Odom v. State, 172 Ala. 383, 55 ... So. 820; Hess v. Corwin, 109 Mo.App. 22, 84 S.W ... 141. Therefore, when the trial judge sets out the facts, the ... ...