Pratt v. State
| Decision Date | 15 December 1936 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 84 |
| Citation | 27 Ala.App. 301,171 So. 393 |
| Parties | PRATT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; Ernest Lacy, Judge.
Delmar Pratt was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
J.B Powell, of Jasper, for appellant.
A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The evidence for the State tends to prove that, while the defendant was driving a large, seven-passenger automobile along the public highway in Walker county, he ran said automobile against Gordon Nix, and as a result thereof the said Gordon Nix died. According to the State's evidence the place of the accident was in front of a schoolhouse and a church, and in a thickly populated community, and that at the time there were a number of persons walking along the road, going in the same direction of the defendant's car, of which fact the defendant had knowledge.
Manslaughter in the first degree, as defined at common law and under statutes declaratory thereof, consists in the unlawful killing of a human being without malice either expressed or implied. This court has said, where persons are killed by automobiles, " 'if there is evidence tending to show that the blow struck by the automobile being driven by defendant was intentional, or the automobile was being so driven as to evidence a wanton and reckless disregard of human life at the time and place and under the circumstances,' this would be voluntary manslaughter." Barnett v. State (Ala.App.) 171 So. 293; Curlette v. State, 25 Ala.App. 179, 142 So. 775.
Without entering into a detailed discussion of the testimony in the instant case, we simply find that there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury in rendering a verdict of manslaughter in the first or second degree, and therefore the requested written charges instructing the jury to find the defendant not guilty under these charges were properly refused.
Of course, the facts necessary to prove such recklessness in the driving of an automobile, so as to supply the necessary intent, without which there can be no manslaughter in the first degree, must be proven by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and as to this the jury was fully instructed by the court in his oral charge and many charges given in writing at the request of the defendant. Curlette v. State, 25 Ala.App. 179, 142 So. 775; Barnett v. State, supra.
As to those charges requested in writing by the defendant relating solely to the charge of murder, we do not consider, for the reason that the verdict of the jury has acquitted the defendant of murder in either of the degrees.
Refused charge 21 is argumentative, and it is also invasive of the province of the jury, and, for both of these reasons, it was properly refused.
Charges 27 and 29 are covered by the court in his oral charge and in the given charges requested in writing by the defendant.
Charge 33 was properly refused; the plea of contributory negligence is not available as a defense in a criminal case. Schultz v. Nebraska, 89 Neb. 34, 130 N.W. 972, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 403, Ann.Cas.1912C, 495; Broxton v. State ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v. State
...the instruction. See, Stover v. State, 24 Ala.App. 596, 139 So. 573; Crumbley v. State, 26 Ala.App. 24, 152 So. 55; Pratt v. State, 27 Ala.App. 301, 171 So. 393. Unquestionably the charge is invasive of the province of the jury. Instruction number 21 is substantially a reiteration of what t......
-
Foster v. State, 8 Div. 243
...Ala.App. 163, 113 So. 623; Stover v. State, 24 Ala.App. 596, 139 So. 573; Crumbley v. State, 26 Ala.App. 24, 152 So. 55; Pratt v. State, 27 Ala.App. 301, 171 So. 393; Carroll v. State, Ala.App., 52 So.2d It may be noted that we approved this charge in Crisp v. State, 21 Ala.App. 449, 109 So......
-
Hannon v. State
... ... State, 213 Ala. 390, 104 So. 773; McKenzie v ... State, 19 Ala.App. 319, 97 So. 155; Merrell v ... State, 21 Ala.App. 38, 104 So. 881; Brasher v ... State, 21 Ala.App. 255, 107 So. 230; Hopkins v ... State, 26 Ala.App. 213, 155 So. 891; Pratt v ... State, 27 Ala.App. 301, 171 So. 393; Hendon v ... State, 32 Ala.App. 615, 29 So.2d 360. It was approved in ... these: Doty v. State, 9 Ala.App. 21, 64 So. 170; ... Green v. State, 19 Ala.App. 239, 96 So. 651; ... McHan v. State, 20 Ala.App. 117, 101 So. 81. It is ... evident that the ... ...
-
Harris v. State
...aspects of wantonness were not involved. Copeland v. Cent[ral] of G[eorgi]a Ry. Co., 213 Ala. 620, 105 So. 809, and in Pratt v. State, 27 Ala.App. 301, 171 So. 393. But it is also as well settled that it is culpable wantonness when the accused has knowledge that some person (any person) is ......