Peterson v. State
Decision Date | 04 June 1946 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 920. |
Citation | 27 So.2d 27,32 Ala.App. 439 |
Parties | PETERSON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 25, 1946.
Alto V. Lee, III, and Jas. L. Tindell, both of Dothan, for appellant.
Wm. N. McQueen, Atty. Gen., and Clarence M Small, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was tried on an indictment charging murder in the first degree and convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. The punishment imposed was eight years in the penitentiary.
In a well prepared brief, able counsel for appellant raise the following questions:
'The assignment of errors may be briefly outlined as follows:
'(1) The trial court erred in over-ruling Defendant's motion for a new trial.
'(2) The trial court erred in over-ruling Defendant's objection to the following question propounded by the State to the witness, Arthur Grubb. 'What did James Wood do with the gun when he took it away from Mr. Peterson?', to which the Defendant excepted.
'(3) The trial court erred in over-ruling Defendant's objection to the following question propounded by the State to the witness, J. L. Corbitt. 'Where did you get it?', to which the Defendant excepted.
'(4) The trial court erred in over-ruling the Defendant's objection to the following question propounded by the State to the Defendant. 'What was between you and that field to prevent you from getting away?', to which the Defendant excepted.
'(5) The trial court erred in over-ruling Defendant's objection to the following question propounded by the State to the Defendant. 'Nothing to prevent your escaping, was there?', to which the Defendant excepted.
'(6) The trial court erred in over-ruling Defendant's objection to the following question propounded by the State to the Defendant. 'There was not a thing in the world between you and that cornfield to prevent your going into it was there?', to which the Defendant excepted.
'(7) The trial court erred in over-ruling Defendant's objection to the following question propounded by the State to the witness, Elvanie Willis. 'Elvanie, did you and your husband, Dallie Willis, go up to Mr. Douglas' house that morning before Dallie was shot?', to which the Defendant excepted.
'(8) The court erred in over-ruling Defendant's objection to the following question propounded by the State to the witness, Elvanie Willis. 'Was Mr. Peterson at yours and Dallie's house when you all left to go up to Mr Douglas' house?', to which Defendant excepted.
We will treat these inquiries in the order in which they are noted above.
In many respects the evidence is not in serious conflict. That for the State tended to establish that the appellant went to the home of the deceased early on Sunday morning accompanied by Arthur Grubb. During the interim between their arrival and the fatal shooting, about two hours later, several others joined the party. Appellant left and returned with a double barreled shot gun, but James Wood, a member of the assembled group, took the weapon from him and carried it away. Appellant forthwith went to his home and soon came back with another shot gun. At this time he re-entered the house of the deceased and sat on the front porch. In a reasonably short period of time an automobile drove up and the defendant pointed his gun at the occupants of the car and ordered them to leave. Then it was that the deceased attempted to intercede, and we quote at this point from the record:
'
The appellant, as a witness in his own behalf, admitted that he shot the deceased, but claimed at the time the latter was approaching him in close proximity with an open knife in his hand. An officer testified that he found a knife under the dead body of the deceased, but it was not open.
If the jury accepted the version of the occurrence as disclosed by the State's witnesses, its verdict and punishment were clearly justifiable, and we do not feel authorized to disturb this finding.
As was observed in Girardino v. Birmingham Southern R. Co., 179 Ala. 420, 60 So. 871, 872: 'The verdict of a jury and the judgment of a trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bankhead v. State
...30 Ala.App. 99, 1 So.2d 917; Booth v. State, 247 Ala. 600, 25 So.2d 427; Vernon v. State, 239 Ala. 593, 196 So. 96; Peterson v. State, 32 Ala.App. 439, 27 So.2d 27. the fact that we have not been assisted in our labors by a brief from appellant's counsel, we have attempted to comply fully w......
-
Scott v. State
...examined each of these and it does not appear in any incident that the judge abused the wide latitude here allowed. Peterson v. State, 32 Ala.App. 439, 27 So.2d 27; Glover v. State, 25 Ala.App. 423, 148 So. We will now review the written instructions which were refused to appellant. Number ......
-
Sparks v. State
...Tucker v. State, Ala.App., 55 So.2d 365; Bryant v. State, supra. Wide latitude on cross-examination was not abused. Peterson v. State, 32 Ala.App. 439, 27 So.2d 27; Broadway v. State, 35 Ala.App. 86, 45 So.2d Over the general objections of appellant's counsel the court permitted Joe Holly's......
-
Garrett v. State
... ... We would ... do serious violence to the rules appertaining if we should ... disturb the judgment of the court below in his action in ... denying the motion for new trial. Booth v. State, ... 247 Ala. 600, 25 So.2d 427; Freeman v. State, 30 ... Ala.App. 99, 1 So.2d 917; Peterson v. State, 32 ... Ala.App. 439, 27 So.2d 27; Summers v. State, 32 ... Ala.App. 657, 29 So.2d 431 ... This ... opinion has been prepared without the aid of briefs from ... either the appellant's counsel or the Attorney General ... We have endeavored, nevertheless, to comply fully ... ...