Parrish v. State

Decision Date14 April 1904
Citation36 So. 1012,139 Ala. 16
PartiesPARRISH v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; D. A. Greene, Judge.

Hollis B. Parrish was convicted of murder in the second degree, over pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, and he appeals. Reversed.

During the organization of the petit jury for the trial of the case one T. W. Riddle was called as a juror, and, upon his voir dire, in response to the usual questions propounded by the court, he stated that he had no fixed opinion in the case and thereupon the court pronounced the juror competent. After this juror had been accepted by the state, the defendant requested the court to be allowed to ask the juror the following question: "State whether or not you have any opinion at all as to the merits of the case?" The court refused to allow the defendant to ask the juror said question, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted. Thereupon the defendant requested the court to ask the juror the question itself, and duly excepted to the court's refusal to ask such question. The defendant then offered to ask said juror the following question: "Whether or not he had heard the facts in the case discussed?" The state objected to this question, the court sustained the objection and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted. Thereupon the defendant requested the court to ask the juror the question itself, and, upon the court declining to ask the juror the said question, the defendant duly excepted. After one J. M Davis, who was summoned as a juror, had been examined upon his voir dire, and was pronounced competent by the court, and accepted by the state as a juror, and had stated, in answer to a question by the defendant, that he was a conductor on the Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Company's road, the defendant asked the said juror Davis the following question "What car line do you run on?" The state objected to this question, the court sustained the objection, and the defendant duly excepted.

The evidence relating to the facts and circumstances of the killing of George S. Leonard, deceased, by the defendant, was without conflict, and showed that the defendant and the deceased were riding on the back platform of a street car in the city of Birmingham; that the deceased was talking in a loud voice, and said to the defendant, "I'll hang it over your head," referring to some remark which had been previously made; that thereupon Joe Nix, a police officer in the city of Birmingham, who was standing on the rear platform of the car, said to the deceased to hush, and, upon the deceased refusing to stop talking in a loud and boisterous manner, the policeman, Nix, said to the conductor to stop the car, and told the deceased that he was going to put him off; that said policeman put his hand on the deceased's arm, and asked one Harris, who was standing on the platform of the car, to take hold of the deceased; that at this time the defendant pulled his pistol from his right hip pocket, reached his arm around Nix, the policeman, and fired one shot, which inflicted the fatal wound upon the deceased; that, upon discovering what had been done, the policeman asked the defendant what he was doing, and what made him shoot the deceased; that the defendant answered, "Because he was resisting you, Joe."

One L. E. Thomas was introduced as a witness for the state, and testified that he was on the car at the time the defendant shot the deceased; that the defendant was standing on the back of the platform of the car at the time the shot was fired. This witness then testified that he did not hear any conversation between the defendant and the deceased. Thereupon the state asked the witness the following question: "Did you hear any other conversation?" The defendant objected to this question upon the ground that it called for irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent evidence. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The witness answered that he heard nothing, except, after the deceased was taken off the platform onto the ground, he heard him say, "I am a dead man," to which Mr. Nix, the policeman, replied, "Yes, I think you are." That he then heard Nix say to the defendant, "That is a dirty, low-down trick. What did you do it for?" and to this the defendant replied, "Because he was resisting you, Joe." The defendant moved the court to exclude the answer of this witness to said question upon the ground that it was illegal, irrelevant, and not responsive. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant excepted.

Upon the introduction of one T. N. Harris as a witness for the state, he testified that he was on the car at the time the defendant shot the deceased; that he heard the policeman, Nix, tell the deceased to hush, and, upon his not complying with the request, he heard Nix tell the conductor to stop the car, and that the policeman requested the witness to take hold of the deceased and assist him in putting him off the car, and that, just as the witness got behind the policeman and the deceased, the defendant pulled his pistol, and, reaching around Nix, shot Leonard. Thereupon the state asked the witness the following question: "Did you hear Officer Nix say anything to Parrish about shooting the deceased?" The defendant objected to this question because it called for illegal, irrelevant, and incompetent testimony. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. Whereupon the witness answered that he heard the officer, Nix, say to Parrish: "What made you do it? That was a dirty trick." The defendant moved the court to exclude this answer upon the same grounds, and duly excepted to the court overruling the motion. Upon the witness further testifying that he heard Parrish tell the officer that he shot the deceased because he was resisting the officer, the defendant moved to exclude the answer upon the ground that it was illegal and incompetent testimony, and duly excepted to the court overruling his motion. On cross-examination this witness Harris testified that he lived in Memphis, Tenn., and that he had known Frank Leonard, a brother of the deceased, about four years. Thereupon the defendant asked the witness the following question: "How much did it cost you to come from Memphis here?" The state objected to this question, the court sustained the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant then asked the witness what time he went to Frank Leonard's saloon, and the witness answered that, shortly after arriving in Birmingham from Memphis, he went around to Leonard's saloon. Thereupon the defendant asked the witness the following question: "Did you pay your expenses from Memphis here?" The court sustained the state's objection to this question, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted. On redirect examination, after stating to the witness that he had been asked on his cross-examination if Frank Leonard ran a saloon, the state then asked him the following question: "Do you know whether or not he [Frank Leonard] owns it, or is a clerk in the saloon?" The defendant objected to this question on the ground that it called for irrelevant, immaterial, and illegal testimony, and duly excepted to the court overruling his objection.

One J. S. Miller, a witness for the state, testified that he was the conductor on the car at the time the deceased was shot, and detailed the circumstances of the shooting in substantially the same manner as above stated. Upon his cross-examination the witness was asked if he was ever in Frank Leonard's place of business, and, upon answering that he had gone in Frank Leonard's place of business, the following examination was had: "Question. Did you talk to Frank Leonard in there? Answer. No, sir. Q. With whom did you talk in there? A. I was talking to witness Harris. Q. When was that? A. I don't remember. Q. Was it before this case was set for trial? A. I don't remember. Q. Was it yesterday? A. No, sir. Q. About when was it? A. I won't say. I don't remember. Q. You know it was not yesterday, last night, or to-day?" Upon the witness making no answer to this last question, the defendant's counsel requested the court to require the witness to answer said question. The court declined to do so, stating that the witness had already answered three or four times that he did not remember when he was in the saloon. To this ruling of the court the defendant duly excepted.

There were many witnesses introduced by the defendant whose testimony tended to show that the defendant was insane. It was shown by the testimony that he was a young man; that he was a practicing attorney at the time of the homicide; that for several years prior to the killing he had drunk intemperately; that he was at all times under the influence of whisky or some narcotic; that he would do many strange things, at times would not recognize his father or his best friends, and gave other symptoms of being unbalanced in mind. There was also some evidence introduced on the part of the defendant tending to show that at the time of the shooting the defendant was either suffering from delirium tremens, or was on the verge of that disease.

John W Altman was introduced as a witness for the defendant. He testified that he was a member of the Birmingham bar; that he had known the defendant six or eight years; that for five or six months prior to the homicide the defendant was always constantly under the influence of whisky; that on some occasions he would converse intelligently, but on others he would talk incoherently and disconnectedly; that, from witness' conversations with the defendant, and from his observation of his conduct, he would say that the defendant was a man of unsound mind. Thereupon the defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
142 cases
  • Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Hoomes
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 25, 1929
    ...v. Stephens , supra; Shrimpton & Sons v. Brice & Donahoo, 109 Ala. 643, 20 So. 10; Pope v. State, 174 Ala. 63, 57 So. 245; Parrish v. State, 139 Ala. 16, 36 So. 1012; Mayf. 471; 11 R. C. L. 176-178." Definitions of experts are collected in 22 C.J. 639, § 733, as "men of science," or "posses......
  • Lewis v. Martin
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 18, 1923
    ... ... Action in said cause should ... be suspended in the trial court until the appeal is ... effectively abandoned, dismissed, or decided. State ex ... rel. Attorney General v. Livingston, Judge, 170 Ala ... 147, 54 So. 109; Ex parte City Council of Montgomery, 114 ... Ala. 115, 14 So ... The exercise of this "sound discretion" by ... the court will not be revised, unless it "clearly appears ... to have been erroneous." Parrish v. State, 139 ... Ala. 16, 42, 36 So. 1012 ... It was ... not our intention, in the opinion rendered, to convey the ... idea that ... ...
  • Cunningham v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 12, 1982
    ...Hockenberry v. State, 246 Ala. 369, 371, 20 So.2d 533 (1945); George v. State, 240 Ala. 632, 637, 200 So. 602 (1941); Parrish v. State, 139 Ala. 16, 44, 36 So. 1012 (1903). "The jury may treat the testimony of experts as it deems best in connection with the facts and circumstances of the ca......
  • Long v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1932
    ... ... 52; Peoples v ... Rogers, 18 N.Y. 9, 72 Am. Dec. 484; State of Kansas ... v. Charles Rumble Appt., 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 376; Davis ... v. State, 44 So. 561; Hall v. State, 83 So ... 513; Englehart v. State, 7 So. 154; Gilmer v ... State, 61 So. 377; Homicide, 29 C. J. 1045; Parrish v ... State, 36 So. 1012; 8 R. C. L. secs. 106, 108 ... Argued ... orally by F. M. Witty, and A. F. Gardner, for appellant, and ... by Means Johnston, and W. D. Conn., Jr., for the state ... OPINION ... [141 So. 592] ... [163 ... Miss. 543] ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT