Redden v. State
| Decision Date | 04 February 1913 |
| Citation | 60 So. 992,7 Ala.App. 33 |
| Parties | REDDEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; W. W. Pearson, Judge.
Bud Redden was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
H. R Golson and J. M. Holley, both of Wetumpka, for appellant.
R. C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
A severance having been ordered, the appellant was tried separately on an indictment charging him and two other persons, Love Redden and John Godwin, with murder in the second degree.
There was evidence tending to show that the appellant killed the deceased in an affray in which the two other persons charged in the indictment participated. Evidence as to these other persons taking part against the deceased in the affray at about the time of the infliction of the fatal wound by the appellant, and as to their positions with reference to the deceased at that time, was descriptive of the occurrence under investigation--part of the res gestæ--and the court was not in error in overruling objections to the admission of that evidence. Blount v. State, 49 Ala. 381. Besides, it seems that the admission of that testimony could not have been prejudicial to the appellant.
The affray in which the deceased was killed occurred in front of a house in which the deceased had had a difficulty with another person a short while before. Evidence as to the details or particulars of such former difficulty, with which the parties charged with the homicide were not shown to have been connected, was properly excluded. Jones v. State, 116 Ala. 468, 23 So. 135; Fonville v. State, 91 Ala. 39, 8 So. 688.
We are of opinion that whatever ground of complaint the defendant may have had because of the remark made by the presiding judge on the occasion of the counsel for the defendant announcing his purpose to prove threats made by the deceased was removed by the careful and explicit instructions of the court to the jury not to consider or accord any influence to such remark. Alabama Great So. Ry. Co. v. Frazier, 93 Ala. 45, 9 So. 303, 30 Am. St. Rep. 28; Underhill on Criminal Evidence, § 215.
The court in its oral charge to the jury, in the course of its enumeration and explanation of the elements entering into the offense of murder, made the following statement: "Malice in law is the intentional doing of a wrongful or unlawful...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ratliff v. State
... ... The ... rulings of the court in allowing the state, over the ... objection of defendant, to prove a former difficulty between ... the defendant and a third party was error. Clemmons v ... State, 18 Ala. App. 650, 94 So. 245; Fonville v ... State, 91 Ala. 38, 8 So. 688; Redden v. State, 7 ... Ala. App. 33, 60 So. 992; Gary v. State, 18 ... Ala. App. 367, 92 So. 533; Jones v. State, 181 Ala ... 63, 78, 61 So. 434; Sims v. State, 146 Ala. 109, ... 118, 41 So. 413. It is an elementary rule of evidence that ... the details of such difficulty were inadmissible. Jones ... ...
-
Lowery v. State
...the Cribbs case) the Court of Criminal Appeals' rationale for reversal would be valid. This was the exact situation in Redden v. State, 7 Ala.App. 33, 60 So. 992 (1913) where the trial judge "Malice in law is the intentional doing of a wrongful or unlawful act." In reversing the cause, the ......