Pierce v. State

• Decision Date: 26 April 1934
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 571.
• Citation: 154 So. 526,228 Ala. 545
• Parties: PIERCE v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

154 So. 526

228 Ala. 545

PIERCE v. STATE.

6 Div. 571.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 26, 1934

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; Henry B. Foster Judge.

Ras Pierce, alias Raz Pierce, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Harwood & McQueen, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.

Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

BROWN Justice.

The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of murder in the first degree. The evidence is without dispute that he killed Tom Grace by shooting him with a pistol, and the evidence adduced by the state goes to show that appellant undertook to provoke difficulty with said Grace by assaulting him with an iron pipe; that Grace seized the pipe, and either wrenched it from the hands of appellant or held on to the end thereof to prevent the appellant from assaulting him, and thereupon the appellant drew the pistol, which he had concealed on his person, and shot and killed Grace. There was also evidence going to show that the killing was premeditated.

Appellant offered evidence of his general good character, and his testimony was to the effect that he went to where Grace was loading lumber on a truck for the purpose of getting from him lumber in payment of a debt of $3.52; that he carried the pipe along in his truck to use as a measuring stick, to measure the lumber, and, after Grace had refused to let him have the lumber on the debt, he went to his truck, got the pipe, and started around between the truck and the lumber when Grace wrenched the pipe out of his hands, and, with the pipe grasped in both hands, Grace drew back over his head, with a threat that he would "bust out" appellant's brains, and at this juncture appellant drew the pistol and shot Grace. The evidence further goes to show that he habitually carried said pistol.

Appellant's first contention is that the court erred to his prejudice in "excluding testimony that there had been hold-ups and robberies of filling stations and garages in the vicinity of the place where the defendant operated a filling station and garage."

Appellant testified: "I had the pistol in my overall pocket, and I had put it in my pocket before I left home that morning to Griffin's sawmill. When I left the house to go to the store I put the pistol in my pocket. In fact I carried it in my pocket all the time every day. I operate a filling station, garage and store. Thereupon, counsel for the defendant asked the defendant the following question: Q. Has there been any hold-ups, any robberies of filling stations up there in the community? The State objected to this question and counsel for the defendant then asked the witness the following question: Q. How long had you been carrying that pistol around your filling station? A. Been carrying it about a couple of months. I expect longer than that. Counsel for the defendant then asked the witness the following question: Q. Had any one warned you about being armed at your filling station? A. Nephew of mine. The Solicitor objected, and the Court stated: 'He can prove any threats.' Mr. Harwood: 'Just want to prove that his nephew had given him a pistol on account of the recent robberies of filling stations.' The Solicitor asked the Court to instruct the jury that it is not before them. Court: 'You asked if anybody had warned him of filling...