Pickett v. State, 5 Div. 422
Citation | 71 So.2d 102,37 Ala.App. 410 |
Decision Date | 08 December 1953 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 422 |
Parties | PICKETT v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
J. A. Walker, Jacob Walker, Jr., Walker & Walker, Opelika, for appellant.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., L. E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This appellant was jointly indicted with his brother, John Eddie Pickett, for murder in the first degree of Charlie Frazier. A severance being demanded the appellant was tried separately.
The appellant interposed pleas of not guilty, and not guilty by reason of insanity.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree, punishment being fixed at 15 years imprisonment, and judgment was entered accordingly.
The shooting occurred at the home of Charlie Frazier, the deceased. He was having a fish fry. There was guitar music, and dancing. The function was open to the public, and was commercial as well as social in tone in that the guests paid for any refreshments they obtained.
As is not unusual when difficulties take place at affairs of this nature the evidence is in hopeless conflict and diverse in its trends, even on each side of the case.
As we read the record there was evidence presented by the State tending to show that the appellant, his brother John Eddie, his father, Early Pickett, and his mother were at the entertainment. A difficulty ensued between John Eddie and one Hayward Green in one of the rooms of the house. The father, Early Pickett, intervened and stopped the disturbance. According to Hayward Green the father told John Eddie to come on and go, 'and we will come back.' This remark was not heard by any other of the witnesses, however. The father, mother, and John Eddie left without Roosevelt, the appellant. According to one or more of the State's witnesses the father and his two sons returned in about 20 to 30 minutes in an automobile. The two sons got out of the car, and the father, Early, remained in it. The appellant was carrying a shotgun and John Eddie a rifle.
John Eddie walked toward the house and entered a door, with the barrel of the rifle pointing straight up. Just as he entered the room several men grabbed him and Charlie Frazier, the deceased, approached the difficulty.
At this time the appellant, who had lingered in the yard, fired a shotgun into the melee. One of the buckshot with which the gun was loaded entered Frazier's heart and he fell with this mortal wound.
The evidence for the defense was directed toward showing that the appellant did not leave with his family after the difficulty between John Eddie and Green, but remained at the scene; that when the Picketts returned to their home John Eddie was directed to go to bed. Instead he slipped out of the house and returned to Frazier's place. The father, upon discovering John Eddie's absence went to Frazier's after him, but did not arrive there until after the shooting.
John Eddie, in his testimony, claimed that he had hidden the rifle in a nearby cotton patch early in the evening, and upon his second visit he was taking the rifle into the house in order to pawn it.
Among the grounds assigned in support of the motion for a new trial were ones to the effect that the verdict was contrary to the law, and was contrary to the evidence, in that the uncontradicted evidence tends to show that the appellant was insane at the time of the commission of the offense.
In the trial below, in support of the plea of insanity the defense offered a number of lay witnesses, and a medical witness.
Mr. Oliver Coley testified that he had known the appellant ten years or longer. In response to a question as to what he had observed about the appellant Mr. Coley answered as follows:
Mr. Hilton Bentley testified that he operated a grocery store in Notasulga, and had known the appellant for about three years; the appellant bought lunches at the store. In the words of this witness:
Mr. Coley Langley testified that he was in the mercantile business and had known the appellant about a year. The record shows the following during the direct examination of this witness:
'
Later the appellant began coming to witness' store at least three times a week to purchase merchandise.
Mr. J. W. Zachary testified that he lived about two and a half miles from the appellant's home and had known him some 12 or 13 years, and had tried to work him. In this connection this witness testified:
Precious Pickett, the mother of the appellant, testified that she first noticed that the appellant was different from the other children when he 'couldn't talk good;' that he was sent to school when he was six years old, but he 'didn't learn like the other children.'
This witness further testified:
'Q. Did he ever learn to read? A. No, sir.
'Q. Did you ever try to teach him to read? A. Yes, sir.
'Q. Tell the Jury what you tried to do and how he acted. A. When I started him off to learning there at home, I would tell him to say his ABC's and just as soon as I would get away from A B C D, I say, 'You go back now and say where I told you to' and he couldn't even say the first one.
'Q. Did he ever get beyond 'D'? A. No, sir.
'Q. Did he ever get to 'D'? A. No, sir. He couldn't say 'A'.
with his fingers, that way. He couldn't even count his fingers.
Charlie Moss, a trustee of the school attended by the appellant, testified that the appellant never 'made a grade' during his schooling, and that:
Dr. H. S. Holloway, Jr., testified that after graduating from Tulane Medical School he was a rotating interne in Charity Hospital in New Orleans, and in such type of interneship he saw all types of patients; he entered the Army upon completion of his interneship and was in the military service for about four years, during which time he had a general medical experience; since 1946 he has engaged in the general practice of medicine in Notasulga, and in such practice he has come in contract with patients of unsound mind and has had occasion to treat such illness.
Dr. Holloway further testified that he had known the appellant for some four or five years. Several months previously he had attended the appellant for a broken arm. He had put a metal splint on appellant's arm and had instructed him to report back in two days. He did not see the appellant again for five or six weeks. The appellant had removed the splint and the bones had knitted but in a crooked manner. When the appellant was brought in the five or six weeks after he had splinted the arm Dr. Holloway was asked what could be done. He declined to attempt further treatment.
Dr. Holloway further testified that in his opinion the appellant was congenitally feeble-minded and was of a mental age of four or five years.
The appellant himself was placed in the witness box. He testified that he lived in Notasulga, but that he did not know how old he was.
There then follows some three pages of questions propounded to him by his counsel, with 'no answer' being indicated by the reporter.
Toward the end of his examination he did make some answers, and we excerpt the following from the record:
'Q. Tell him because you are on trial for your life. You had better do the best you can. A. (No answer)
'Q. What did you see old John do? A. (No answer)
'Q. You saw him do something. Tell him, tell that man right in front of you. Don't tell anybody but him. Did you see a man jump on him? A. (No answer)
'Q. Did you see somebody jump on John? A. (The answer sounded like he said) Somebody jump on my brudder.
'Q. Go ahead. Tell us what happened.
[Reporter's note: None of the following answers were clear, but as well as I could distinguish his answers, they sounded like what is written each time.]
'A. Told me he was going to kill me too.
'Q. What else happened. A....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Weathers
...and some reason must be objectively present for ignoring expert opinion testimony." (Footnote omitted.)); Pickett v. State , 37 Ala. App. 410, 414, 71 So. 2d 102 (1953) ("Even undisputed expert medical evidence is not conclusive upon the jury, but must be weighed like other evidence, and ma......
-
Cunningham v. State
...verdict was contrary to the overwhelming and conclusive evidence of insanity. In chronological order those cases are: Pickett v. State, 37 Ala.App. 410, 71 So.2d 102 (1953), cert. denied, 260 Ala. 699, 71 So.2d 107 (1954); Christian v. State, 351 So.2d 623 (Ala.1977); Herbert v. State, 357 ......
-
Penry v. Lynaugh
...344 Ill. 261, 267, 176 N.E. 314, 316 (1931); Chriswell v. State, 171 Ark. 255, 259, 283 S.W. 981, 983 (1926). Cf. Pickett v. State, 37 Ala.App. 410, 71 So.2d 102, 107 (1954). See generally Ellis & Luckasson, 53 Geo.Wash.L.Rev., at 435. Moreover, reliance on mental age to measure the capabil......
-
Ellis v. State
...opinion testimony, even of experts in insanity cases, must be weighed by the jury and may not be arbitrarily ignored. Pickett v. State, 37 Ala.App. 410, 71 So.2d 102, cert. denied, 260 Ala. 699, 71 So.2d 107 (1954); Boyle v. State, 229 Ala. 212, 154 So. 575 "We are cognizant on this appeal ......