Peters v. State
Decision Date | 13 February 1941 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 78. |
Citation | 200 So. 404,240 Ala. 531 |
Parties | PETERS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; D. H. Edington, Judge.
J. M (or James Marshall) Peters, alias James (or Jimmie) Peterson was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
D. R Coley, Jr., of Mobile, for appellant.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Prime F. Osborn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was indicted for murder in the circuit court of Mobile County, the indictment charging that he"unlawfully, and with malice aforethought, killed Mittie Peters, alias Mittie Whitehurst by shooting her with a pistol."
On his trial he pleaded "not guilty" and "not guilty by reason of insanity."The trial resulted in a verdict of murder in the first degree fixing the punishment at death.
The deceased was formerly the defendant's wife from whom he was divorced in a proceeding which he procured to be filed in her name.To quote from the brief in his behalf:
The evidence is without dispute that the decree of divorce was granted Saturday, May 6, 1939, and on the same date, after the divorce was granted, the defendant married another woman, and on the Monday following the defendant shot deceased several times with a pistol, inflicting mortal wounds causing instant death.
The evidence offered by the State goes to show that the defendant armed himself with a pistol loaded in every chamber, carrying extra ammunition in his pocket, went to the "Union Tavern" located on Royal and Adams Streets, in the City of Mobile, operated by one of deceased's brothers, where she lived and worked, and where her mother, Minnie Whitehurst, also lived, and there waited until deceased drove up in an automobile, when defendant pulled the pistol and shot and wounded Minnie Whitehurst, and then turned on Mittie Whitehurst, who was not armed, pursued her up the street, shot her down, and stood over her and shot her in the head.Previous to the arrival of Mittie Whitehurst on the scene, as the undisputed evidence shows, the conversation between defendant and Minnie Whitehurst was perfectly friendly.Immediately on the arrival of the automobile in which Mittie, her brother Ectrick and Ethel Pinkerton came to the "Union Tavern" a wordy altercation between defendant and Minnie Whitehurst ensued, in which Minnie Whitehurst applied to defendant vile epithets and in which he applied to her the same character of vile epithets.
The defendant's theory of the circumstances leading to the killing, as illustrated by his testimony, is, to quote from brief filed in his behalf:
The defendant in the confession made at police headquarters immediately after the killing stated, among other things:
The fact that Margaret Waltman, who was not subpoenaed as a witness, had been in the court room and heard some of the witnesses testify, did not justify the court in refusing to allow defendant to examine her as a witness, since it was made to appear that neither the defendant nor his counsel knew that she was an eye witness to a part of the difficulty between defendant and the Whitehursts, and she was not in the court room by procurement of defendant or his counsel.Degg v. State,150 Ala. 3, 43 So. 484;H. J. Mitchell v. State,28 Ala.App. 119, 180 So. 119.
This ruling constitutes reversible error.The question at issue before the jury and within their peculiar province was not only the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but if guilty what the punishment should be.The testimony of said proffered witness related to the res gestae of the alleged crime, and we have no way of evaluating the testimony, or adjudging what weight it may have had on the jury.
Many of the rulings of the court complained of relate to evidence which the defendant proposed to introduce to establish a predicate for allowing lay witnesses to testify that in the opinion of such witnesses the defendant was insane.Among other things that the house known as the "Union Tavern" operated by the deceased's brother, where the mother of the deceased lived, was operated as a house of prostitution, and that deceased's mother induced her to absent herself from defendant's home and their baby, and practice prostitution.
That the said Minnie Whitehurst, in connection with the Union Tavern, operated a house of prostitution.
That said Minnie Whitehurst sometime before going to the Union Tavern operated a house of prostitution on Conti Street in the City of Mobile.This evidence was not relevant to the issues in the case, nor was it competent as going to establish a predicate for the opinion testimony of lay witnesses that the defendant was insane.
To qualify such witness to express an opinion that the person, the subject of the inquiry, is insane, it must appear from the testimony of the witness that he has such acquaintance, continuous intimacy with the person as to observe his character and habits, which reasonably enables the witness to form an opinion, and the witness must state the acts, declarations and conduct of such person, tending to show that such person is afflicted with mental distemper.McCurry v. Hooper,12 Ala. 823, 46 Am.Dec. 280;14 R.C.L. 617,§ 68;Parrish v. State,139 Ala. 16, 36 So. 1012;Sorter v. Austen,221 Ala. 481, 129 So. 51;Bachelor v. State,216 Ala. 356, 113 So. 67;Howard v. State,172 Ala. 402, 55 So. 255, 34 L.R.A.,N.S., 990;Queenan v. Oklahoma,190 U.S. 548, 23 S.Ct. 762, 47 L.Ed. 1175;23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, pp. 78-80, § 867;14 R.C.L. 617, § 68.
Proof of acts, conduct, declarations and delinquencies of others, though related to the prisoner and going to show motive for the crime under investigation, or tending to stimulate a desire for revenge, can not be made a predicate for such non-expert opinion.
The acts, declarations and conduct of the accused, constituting a part and within the res gestae of the alleged crime, can not be made the predicate for the opinion of such lay witness.The probative force of such evidence falls within the exclusive province of the jury, to be weighed and considered in connection with all other evidence.Clark v. Fisher, 1 Paige, N.Y., 171, 19 Am.Dec. 402;14 R.C.L. pp. 601, 602, § 28;Pace v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company,166 Ala. 519, 52 So. 52;Crotwell et al. v. Cowan et al.,236 Ala. 578, 584184 So. 195...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Faircloth v. State, 8 Div. 8
...testimony as such deprivation would violate the accused's constitutional right to have witnesses testify in his behalf and at his call." McElroy § 286.01, citing Braswell v. Wainwright, 463 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir.1972);
Peters v. State, 240 Ala. 531, 200 So. 404 (1941); Degg v. State, 150 Ala. 3, 43 So. 484 (1907). However, even if error be present, a reversal is not always "Although the trial court's exclusion of a witness because of a mere violation of a sequestration order... -
James v. State
...thereto. Easley v. State, Ala., 20 So.2d 519. (5) Error is sought to be predicated on the refusal by the court to give Charge 1. The court correctly refused this charge. It invades the province of the jury and is misleading.
Peters v. State, 240 Ala. 531, 200 So. 404; Tucker v. State, 198 Ala. 4, 73 So. 385; v. Yielding, 28 Ala. 658; Jennings v. State, 15 Ala.App. 116, 72 So. 690; Enzor v. State, 24 Ala.App. 346, 135 So. 595; Lightfoot v.... -
Langley v. State
...upon any material inquiry in the case, and was but the presentation of an unsightly spectacle calculated to prejudice the jury.' (Italics supplied by us.) To the same effect is the holding in the more recent case of
Peters v. State, 240 Ala. 531, 200 So. 404. In instant case the bloodstained shirt of the deceased, which was pierced by no bullet hole, and which was utterly incapable of accomplishing any of the purposes listed hereinabove as being held in Floyd v. State, supra,... -
Hoffer v. Burd
...Appearances of Persons and Things, p. 113; State v. McKnight, 119 Iowa 79, 93 N.W. 63; Donahue v. Meagley, 220 App.Div. 469, 221 N.Y.S. 707; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Fishman, 169 Ill. 196, 48 N.E. 447;
Peters v. State, 240 Ala. 531, 200 [78 N.D. 290]So. 404, 409; State v. Dale, 66 S.D. 418, 284 N.W. 770; Miller v. Miller, 237 Iowa 978, 23 N.W.2d Error is assigned on the cross examination of defense witness, Ritmiller, in regard to the young lady...