Price v. State
| Decision Date | 21 May 1914 |
| Docket Number | 142 |
| Citation | 65 So. 308,10 Ala.App. 67 |
| Parties | PRICE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Autauga County; W.W. Pearson, Judge.
Leander Price was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The person killed was Major Posey, and the witness referred to was the wife of deceased and sister of defendant. The motion to quash was based on the following grounds: Because the name of George F. Golson was served upon defendant as one name and no such person has been summoned to court; that no copy of the jurors, from whom he is not required to select, has been served upon defendant as by law required; that defendant is deprived of the full venire which was served upon him that defendant is deprived of 12 names out of the list actually served upon him, said 12 names having been selected to try another case; and other grounds stating the same objection in different ways. So far as appears from the record, no evidence was offered to sustain this motion, it merely appearing that the court overruled the motion; and defendant excepted. Charge 3 is as follows:
If the evidence of the state consists in the statement of a witness, of the truth of which the jury has a reasonable doubt, they cannot convict on such evidence, although they may not believe the testimony of defendant's witness.
Eugene Ballard and Guy Rice, both of Prattville, for appellant.
R.C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and T.H. Seay, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
It is not made to appear from the record that there was any evidence before the court of the existence in fact of any ground stated in the defendant's motion to quash the venire of jurors. The venire was not subject to be quashed in the absence of any legal ground of objection to it. The record does not show that the court's action in overruling the motion to quash was erroneous.
Following a statement of the deceased's widow, who was the sister of the defendant, to the effect that the latter asked her if she wanted to be a widow and if she wanted to collect on her policy written upon the life of her husband, the witness was permitted, over the defendant's objection on the grounds that the evidence was incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant, to testify that she did have a policy on her husband's life. The testimony to this effect was not subject to the objection made to it. The fact that the witness had such a policy properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slayton v. State
... ... testimony. Bradley v. State, 19 Ala.App. 578, 99 So ... In the ... case of Cobb v. State, 20 Ala.App. 3, 100 So. 463, ... 464, this court said: "Wilson [the accomplice and party ... hired to burn a storehouse] testified that defendant employed ... him, at the price of $50, to burn the store, telling witness ... to meet him *** behind the buildings on the night of the ... fire. When the two met according to agreement, a little after ... 12 o'clock, defendant told witness he was going back to ... the house and would come back in his car and unlock the store ... ...
-
Freeman v. State
...where there were other witnesses and other testimony, as in the case at bar, the charge is held to be confusing and misleading. Price's Case, 10 Ala.App. 67, 65 South. 308 [ (1914) ]; Conner's Case, 10 Ala.App. 206, 65 South 309 [(1914)]; McConnell v. Adair, 147 Ala. 599, 41 South. 419 [ (1......
-
Baxley v. State
...there were other witnesses and other testimony, as in the case at bar, the charge is held to be confusing and misleading. Price's Case, 10 Ala.App. 67, 65 So. 308; Connor's Case, 10 Ala.App. 206, 65 So. 309; v. Adair, 147 Ala. 599, 41 So. 419. In the case at bar there were several witnesses......
-
Stafford v. State
... ... of evidence. Staton v. State, 8 Ala.App. 221, 62 So ... The ... court, we think, was justified in refusing defendant's ... requested charges No. 12 and No. 20. Osborn v ... State, 30 Ala.App. 386, 6 So.2d 461, and also ... defendant's requested charge No. 15; Price v ... State, 10 Ala.App. 67, 65 So. 308 ... Refused Charge No. 13 was fairly and substantially covered by ... given charge 17; Charge 29 refused to defendant was ... substantially covered by given charge 30. Refused charge No ... 21 was substantially covered by the court's ... ...