Pointer v. State
Decision Date | 19 August 1930 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 614. |
Citation | 129 So. 787,24 Ala.App. 23 |
Parties | POINTER v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; R. B. Carr, Judge.
Will Pointer was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Bibb, Field, Field & Woolf and Knox, Acker Sterne & Liles, all of Anniston, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was tried on an indictment charging him with murder in the first degree. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and the appellant assigns as error the overruling of the motion, as well as various rulings during the trial.
The evidence tended to show that the deceased, Phillips, in company with one Pinson (both Phillips and Pinson being enemies of appellant and not on speaking terms with him) waited at a point where he had to pass when returning from his work to his home, and that the deceased, Phillips, accosted Pointer about a controversial matter and barred Pointer's way, refusing to let him pass when Pointer tried to continue on toward his home. A difficulty then ensued between the two men, in the course of which appellant was severely injured, by having been beat over the head with a pistol, as a result of which he was drenched with his own blood. The combatants, in their struggle, moved from the point of original encounter to a point some 70 feet away, where the struggle terminated by the firing of the pistol shots that killed Phillips. The pistol was fired so close to Phillips that his clothing was set on fire.
The defendant's testimony tended to show that he was unarmed when accosted by deceased; that deceased produced a pistol and fired at the defendant, whereupon the two men grappled; and that, in the encounter, Pointer finally succeeded, in the course of a desperate hand-to-hand struggle, in turning upon Phillips the latter's own pistol. The pistol with which Phillips was shot was a Colt's pistol, No. 70250. The defendant's evidence tended to trace the history of the pistol from the factory of the Colt Manufacturing Company through the hands of a number of owners, and showed that it was sold to Phillips about a year before the affray. The widow of the deceased, however, denied that the pistol belonged to him.
The appellant excepted to numerous rulings of the trial court, and assigns as error a series of arguments, statements, questions, and offers to prove, made in the presence of the jury, as to matters which the appellant avers were highly prejudicial to him. The appellant argues that "there were several of these occurrences, each sufficient in and of itself to necessitate a reversal, and that the entire series of such matters, taken as a whole, created a general atmosphere of prejudicial and improper suggestions and statements to the jury, grossly invasive of his right to a legal trial."
Among the complaints so made by the appellant are the following, as stated by him:
In addition to the instances above set forth, which the appellant urges as showing a general course of prejudicing his rights by presenting to the jury illegal matter through the medium of improper arguments, side remarks to the jury, insinuations, etc., there is one occurrence which needs to be dealt with specifically. The state produced as a witness one Carroll, who testified to certain things which he had seen shortly after the homicide. On cross-examination, he testified to certain facts very favorable to the defendant. Thereupon, on redirect examination, the witness was asked the following question by the special prosecutor: "You have been in the penitentiary for stealing a horse, haven't you?" The defendant objected to the question, and the objection was sustained. Thereupon, in the presence of the jury, the prosecuting counsel said: "We offer to prove, if the court please, that this man was sent to the penitentiary for stealing a horse." When this occurred, the defendant asked that the jury retire, and moved the court to grant a mistrial, on the ground that gross and ineradicable prejudice had been done his case by the asking of this question and the making of the offer to prove in the presence of the jury. The court overruled the motion, and the defendant excepted. The defendant assigned this ruling as one of the grounds of his motion for a new trial, and also assigned the wrong and prejudice alleged to have been done him by the asking of this question and the statement as to the offer to prove.
Upon the most elementary principles, it is manifest that this occurrence...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blue v. State
... ... exclude, these occurrences were so numerous, and in many ... instances evidenced such persistence of effort to present to ... the jury facts held illegal by the court, that they could not ... have failed to prejudice the defendant." Pointer v ... State, 24 Ala.App. 23, 129 So. 787, 789, 790 ... While ... not found applicable, the foregoing principle was not denied ... by this court in Vaughn v. State, 236 Ala. 442, 183 ... So. 428, 431. See also Moore v. State, 30 Ala.App ... 552, 9 So.2d 146 ... The ... ...
-
Chambers v. State
...the conviction obtained is not in an impartial atmosphere. Blue v. State, supra, (246 Ala. 73, 19 So.2d 11). See also Pointer v. State, 24 Ala.App. 23, 129 So. 787; DuBose v. State, 148 Ala. 560, 42 So. 862." As in Allred, 291 Ala. at 37-38, 277 So.2d at 342 "In answering the question befor......
-
Melvin v. State, 4 Div. 846.
... ... A ... careful examination of these questions will convince the most ... incredulous that no merit should be accorded this insistence ... and the court properly overruled the motion for a mistrial ... The case of Pointer v. State, 24 Ala.App. 23, 129 ... So. 787, and other cases cited by appellant's counsel in ... brief in support of this position are distinguishable without ... difficulty ... Objection was interposed to the introduction of the shirt ... which undisputedly was a part of the ... ...
-
Moore v. State, 6 Div. 939.
... ... ineradicable and necessitates our ordering another trial, ... even though instructions to mend the matter were given to the ... jury by the able and astute trial judge ... The ... emphatic observation in our case of Pointer v ... State, 24 Ala.App. 23, 27, 129 So. 787, 790, is ... apposite: "The practice of injecting illegal ... considerations into a trial through the medium of improper ... arguments, statements, side remarks, and intimations ... calculated to influence the jury, has many times been ... ...