Quinn v. State

Decision Date09 May 1911
Citation1 Ala.App. 116,55 So. 450
PartiesQUINN v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

On Application for Rehearing, May 29, 1911.

On Application for Rehearing.

Appeal from City Court of Anniston; Thomas W. Coleman, Jr., Judge.

Early Quinn was convicted of an assault with a weapon, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Knox, Acker, Dixon & Blackmon, for appellant.

Robert C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was indicted for assault on Aaron Whatley with intent to murder, and was convicted of assault with a weapon.

There was no error in sustaining the objection to the question to the witness Buck Maxwell, asking if the defendant was not badly beaten up and muddy. There was no proof at the time this question was asked of any fight between the defendant and Aaron Whatley, the man who was shot, but only a mention by John Whatley that he had had a fight with the defendant shortly before the shooting. The evidence sought was irrelevant to the issues in this case.

The witness Warren Barnes was asked by the defendant's counsel if Aaron Whatley and John Whatley were not both on the defendant, fighting him, in the first fight. There was no error in sustaining the objection to this question. It was seeking to prove the particulars of a previous difficulty and if they had been both on him fighting him before, that would furnish no justification for the defendant to shoot Aaron Whatley at this time.

There was no error in sustaining the objection to the question to the witness Barnes by the defendant, "Did you hear Aaron Whatley say anything about going where he could whip Early Quinn after the fight?" as no testimony had been offered tending to show that said Aaron Whatley was making any demonstration towards the defendant at the time of the shooting, or was even approaching him; nor was there any error in sustaining the objection to the following question to the same witness: "Did you hear any statement made by Aaron Whatley as to the way he was going home?" as it was irrelevant to the issues in this case what way he said he was going home.

The questions to the defendant as a witness: "What did he do to you at that place?" "State whether or not this man, Aaron Whatley, did anything or threatened to do anything to you with a pole?" and "Did he make any threat to you then at that place?"--were attempts to prove the particulars of a former difficulty, and the objections to the same were properly sustained. If the last-named question did not come strictly under the principle mentioned, it was error without injury, as the witness subsequently stated what it was that said Whatley said to him, in the way of a threat, to wit: "I will see you again."

There was no error in sustaining the objection to the question to the defendant as a witness, "Did you see him pick up a pole or rail over there at the first place where the first difficulty occurred?" as it related to the particulars of the former difficulty.

There was no error in overruling the objection by the defendant to the question to the witness Aaron Whatley,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Wise v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 1914
    ...act. Garrett v. State, 76 Ala. 18; Still v. State, 91 Ala. 10, 8 So. 669, 24 Am.St.Rep. 853; Jones v. State, 76 Ala. 9; Quin v. State, 1 Ala.App. 116, 55 So. 450. It insisted by the state's counsel in brief that, as the defendant subsequently testified about this difficulty and went into th......
  • State v. Abrams
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • February 9, 1924
    ... ... statement, although possibly true, was less persuasive than ... it would otherwise have been. Evidence of the actual ... situation was admissible as bearing upon the likelihood of ... the defendant's version of the circumstances attending ... the homicide being true. (Quinn v. The State, 1 ... Ala.App. 116, 55 So. 450; People v. Sehorn, 116 Cal ... 503, 48 P. 495; Moore v. State, 96 Tenn. 209, 33 ... S.W. 1046; Williams v. The State, 30 Tex. Ct. App ... 429, 17 S.W. 1071; Wilson v. The State, 92 Tex ... Crim. 118, 242 S.W. 224.) ... 4 ... While ... ...
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • April 6, 1920
    ... ... state to prove that the defendant entertained feelings of ... hostility toward the deceased, and for this purpose the fact, ... but not the details or particulars, of recent former ... difficulties may be shown. Minor v. State, 15 ... Ala.App. 556, 74 So. 98; Quinn v. State, 1 Ala.App ... 116, 55 So. 450; Allsup v. State, 15 Ala.App. 121, ... 72 So. 599; Smith v. State, 197 Ala. 193, 72 So ... 316; 1 Mayf.Dig. p. 211 ... In the ... instant case, the court below, over the timely objections and ... exceptions of defendant, permitted the ... ...
  • Jobe v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • May 9, 1911
  • 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