Pippin v. State, 1 Div. 905

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtANDERSON, C.J.
Citation197 Ala. 613,73 So. 340
PartiesPIPPIN v. STATE.
Decision Date30 November 1916
Docket Number1 Div. 905

73 So. 340

197 Ala. 613

PIPPIN
v.
STATE.

1 Div. 905

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 30, 1916


Appeal from City Court of Mobile; O.J. Semmes, Judge.

James Pippin was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed. [73 So. 341]

Defendant was charged with killing Charlie Williams. After being examined as a witness for the state, Charlie Tipton was asked, on cross-examination, if he was not then serving sentence on the county road for selling cocaine. The state objected, and the court sustained the objection. While Jim Peterson was being examined, he was asked by defendant: "Did you hear Charlie Williams make any threat of a general nature which might apply to Jim Pippin?" And also: "Did you, at any time that morning, warn this defendant against Charlie Williams?" Objection was sustained to both these questions. The witness had formerly stated that he did not hear Charlie Williams make any threat against this defendant. The defense was that Charlie Williams was a bloodthirsty, dangerous man, and was following defendant with a hammer when the fatal shot was fired. The following charges were refused to defendant:

(1) The court charges the jury that it is a well-settled rule of law that if there be two reasonable constructions which can be given to facts proven, one favorable and the other unfavorable to a party charged with crime, it is the duty of the jury to give that which is favorable rather than that which is unfavorable to the accused party
(19) If there is one single fact proved to the satisfaction of the jury, which is inconsistent with defendant's guilt, this is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, and the jury should acquit
(21) In this case it is only necessary for defendant, in order to make out a case of self-defense, to reasonably satisfy you by the evidence in this case that deceased made an attack upon him under such circumstances as to place him in imminent danger, real or apparent, of losing his life or suffering grievous bodily harm, and the burden then shifts to the state to prove by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not free from fault in bringing on the difficulty.
(23) If defendant was free from fault in bringing on the difficulty, he was under no duty to retreat unless you believe he could have retreated without increasing his danger or with reasonable safety.
(30) The jury may consider evidence of defendant's good character as a circumstance tending to show his innocence.
(31) The jury may consider evidence of defendant's good character for quiet and peacefulness as tending to disprove his commission of the offense charged.
(33) If you believe from the evidence that deceased was a man of violent character, and that
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 practice notes
  • Thompson v. State, CASE NO. 2:16–CV–783–WKW
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • December 26, 2017
    ...General to determine whether" a given crime was a crime of moral turpitude. Hunter , 471 U.S. at 226, 105 S.Ct. 1916 ; Pippin v. State , 197 Ala. 613, 616, 73 So. 340 (1916) (explaining, not too helpfully, that "moral turpitude" "impl[ies] something immoral in itself, regardless ... whether......
  • Brown v. State, 6 Div. 238
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 18, 1946
    ...24 Ala.App. 199, 132 So. 601. In the following cases it did not find favor: Williams v. State, 144 Ala. 14, 40 So. 405, Pippin v. State, 197 Ala. 613, 73 So. 340; Johnson v. State, 8 Ala.App. 14, 62 So. 450. We have, for the convenience of the bench and bar, given some of the history of the......
  • Bankhead v. State, 6 Div. 387.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • November 25, 1947
    ...and distinguished. Unless we have failed to locate the case, the last time the Supreme Court reviewed the charge was in Pippin v. State, 197 Ala. 613, 73 So. 340, 342. The then Chief Justice Anderson wrote: 'There was no error in refusing defendant's requested charge 23. If not otherwise ba......
  • Ledbetter v. State, 7 Div. 936.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 1948
    ...not its prohibition by statute, fixes the moral turpitude.' Fort v. Brinkley, 87 Ark. 400, 112 S.W. 1084, 1085. See also, Pippin v. State, 197 Ala. 613, 73 So. 340; Marshall v. State, 207 Ala. 566, 93 So. 471, 25 A.L.R. 338. The instant question, as framed, sought information as to whether ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
50 cases
  • Thompson v. State, CASE NO. 2:16–CV–783–WKW
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • December 26, 2017
    ...General to determine whether" a given crime was a crime of moral turpitude. Hunter , 471 U.S. at 226, 105 S.Ct. 1916 ; Pippin v. State , 197 Ala. 613, 616, 73 So. 340 (1916) (explaining, not too helpfully, that "moral turpitude" "impl[ies] something immoral in itself, regardless ... whether......
  • Brown v. State, 6 Div. 238
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 18, 1946
    ...24 Ala.App. 199, 132 So. 601. In the following cases it did not find favor: Williams v. State, 144 Ala. 14, 40 So. 405, Pippin v. State, 197 Ala. 613, 73 So. 340; Johnson v. State, 8 Ala.App. 14, 62 So. 450. We have, for the convenience of the bench and bar, given some of the history of the......
  • Bankhead v. State, 6 Div. 387.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • November 25, 1947
    ...and distinguished. Unless we have failed to locate the case, the last time the Supreme Court reviewed the charge was in Pippin v. State, 197 Ala. 613, 73 So. 340, 342. The then Chief Justice Anderson wrote: 'There was no error in refusing defendant's requested charge 23. If not otherwise ba......
  • Ledbetter v. State, 7 Div. 936.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 1948
    ...not its prohibition by statute, fixes the moral turpitude.' Fort v. Brinkley, 87 Ark. 400, 112 S.W. 1084, 1085. See also, Pippin v. State, 197 Ala. 613, 73 So. 340; Marshall v. State, 207 Ala. 566, 93 So. 471, 25 A.L.R. 338. The instant question, as framed, sought information as to whether ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT