Pierce v. State
| Decision Date | 14 December 1937 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 232 |
| Citation | 28 Ala.App. 40,178 So. 248 |
| Parties | PIERCE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1938
Appeal from Circuit Court, Blount County; J.H. Disque, Jr., Judge.
I.D Pierce was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
J.T Johnson, of Oneonta, for appellant.
A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and John J. Haynes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The evidence in this case on the part of the State tends to prove the corpus delicti, and in making out its case the State was allowed, over the objections and exceptions of the defendant, to identify and introduce, in evidence, the clothes worn by the party assaulted at the time of the difficulty, which clothes showed the rents made by the knife of defendant during the fight. These clothes were shown to have been worn by the party assaulted at the time of the difficulty, and were covered with blood, and were in the same condition as when taken from the body of the assaulted party after the fight.
We are cited to the case of Boyette v. State, 215 Ala. 472, 110 So. 812, as authority supporting the contention that the admission of these blood soaked clothes, admitted in evidence, was error to a reversal.
The Boyette Case, supra, has been several times considered by this court and the Supreme Court, and differentiated from the cases in which the evidence discloses a condition of the clothes introduced in cases where the severity of the attack, or the location of the wounds on the party assaulted, would be indicated by bullet holes or knife cuts, notwithstanding the gruesomeness of such evidence. The last of this line of cases seems to be: Morris v. State, 25 Ala.App. 175, 142 So. 685, to which may be added Hyche v. State, 22 Ala.App. 176, 113 So. 644; Id. 217 Ala. 114, 114 So. 906; Moye v. State, 22 Ala.App. 456, 117 So. 153; Id., 217 Ala. 561, 117 So. 154.
In the Boyette Case, supra, Bricken, Presiding Judge for this court, was at some pain in pointing out the differentiation between the Boyette Case, supra, and that other line of cases supporting the holding in Moye v. State, supra. We adopt here the opinion in the Hyche Case, supra, as being sufficient answer to appellant's contention.
There were numerous objections and exceptions to the introduction of evidence. We have examined these exceptions, and in no ruling of the court thereon do we find reversible error. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barbour v. State
...346, 347, 132 So. 711, 713; Hyche v. State, 22 Ala.App. 176, 113 So. 644, certiorari denied 217 Ala. 114, 114 So. 906; Pierce v. State, 28 Ala.App. 40, 178 So. 248.' The appellant insists that the admission in evidence of these articles of clothing was error and relies on Boyette v. State, ......
-
Wilson v. State
...346, 347, 132 So. 711, 713; Hyche v. State, 22 Ala.App. 176, 113 So. 644, certiorari denied 217 Ala. 114, 114 So. 906; Pierce v. State, 28 Ala.App. 40, 178 So. 248. the rule of the foregoing authorities, then, the photographs were relevant and, even though portraying a gruesome spectacle, w......
-
Stallings v. State
...346, 347, 132 So. 711, 713; Hyche v. State, 22 Ala.App. 176, 113 So. 644, certiorari denied 217 Ala. 114, 114 So. 906; Pierce v. State, 28 Ala.App. 40, 178 So. 248. the rule of the foregoing authorities, then, the photographs were relevant and, even though portraying a gruesome spectacle, w......
-
Davis v. State
...31 Ala.App. 21, 11 So.2d 563; Weems v. State, 222 Ala. 346, 132 So. 711; Hyche v. State, 22 Ala.App. 176, 113 So. 644; Pierce v. State, 28 Ala.App. 40, 178 So. 248.' To the same effect are the holdings in the cases of Douglas v. State, 50 Ala.App. 602, 281 So.2d 652; Stowe v. State, 53 Ala.......