Pate v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1909 |
| Citation | 50 So. 357,162 Ala. 32 |
| Parties | PATE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Geneva County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.
Allan Pate was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
W. O Mulkey, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was indicted for murder in the second degree, and was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. The witness Jacobs and others had testified that the deceased was a dangerous, bloodthirsty man particularly when drinking, and said witness was asked by the defendant, on cross-examination, "whether or not he knew the character of the deceased as being a man that would slip up on his adversary and take him unawares." The state objected to this question, and the objection was sustained.
If the general character of the deceased may be shown, in order to throw light upon the fact as to whether the defendant had a right to think that his life was in danger, there seems to be no good reason why the witness, in testifying to his general character, may not be asked to state in what manner he had the general character of acting. If, according to general reputation, he was not only a bloodthirsty man, but one who in carrying out his bloodthirsty designs, would act stealthily or treacherously, it would furnish an additional reason why one should be particularly on his guard against him. It is upon this principle that it is allowable to prove that the deceased was in the habit of carrying a concealed weapon, within the knowledge of the defendant. State v. Ellis, 30 Wash. 369, 70 P. 963; Rodgers v. State, 144 Ala. 32, 40 So. 572. The defendant is presumed to know the general reputation of the deceased, as that means that it is generally known in the community. The Supreme Court of North Carolina holds that it is competent to show the general reputation of the deceased for a particular character of violence, to wit, that his reputation was that of a man who "would walk up to a man and ask him for his right hand and stick a knife in him with his left hand." State v. Sumner, 130 N.C. 718, 721-723, 41 S.E. 803, 805. The court erred in excluding this evidence.
The court erred in excluding the testimony of the witness Caleb Crutchfield as to the general character of the deceased in the community in which the witness lived. A place eight miles distant is practically in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cain v. Skillin
...Hullett, 203 Ala. 272, 82 So. 522; Lester v. Gay, 217 Ala. 585, 117 So. 211; Sharp v. Clopton (Ala. Sup.) 117 So. 647. In the case of Pate v. State, supra, it is said that is presumed to know the general reputation of the deceased, as that means that it is generally known in the community."......
-
Russell v. State
...Arman v. State, 71 Ala. 351; Green v. State, 143 Ala. 2, 39 So. 362; Griffin v. State, 165 Ala. 29, 49, 50 So. 962; Pate v. State, 162 Ala. 32, 50 So. 357; Lambert v. State, 208 Ala. 42, 93 So. 708; Id., Ala. 547, 88 So. 847; Smith v. State, 197 Ala. 193 (4), 72 So. 316; Watson v. State, 18......
-
Higginbotham v. State, 7 Div. 246
...to permit the defendant to testify as to whether or not at the time he went to get the rifle he intended to shoot anyone. Pate v. State, 162 Ala. 32, 50 So. 357; Nickerson v. State, 205 Ala. 684, 88 So. It was not reversible error to refuse to permit the defendant to present evidence as to ......
-
Craven v. State
...community or society in which he has a well-known or established reputation. Marasso v. State, 18 Ala.App. 488, 93 So. 226; Pate v. State, 162 Ala. 32, 70 So. 357; McQueen v. State, 108 Ala. 55, 18 So. 843. We it that the court in this ruling was laboring under the impression that the evide......