Reed v. State, 6 Div. 95.
| Decision Date | 19 January 1932 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 95. |
| Citation | 142 So. 441,25 Ala.App. 18 |
| Parties | REED v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1932.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. Russell McElroy Judge.
Ollie Reed was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Reed v. State, 142 So 442.
R. M Montgomery, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Thos, E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment charged this appellant with the offense of murder in the first degree, in that he unlawfully, and with malice aforethought, killed William Jefferson Crowe, by driving an automobile over, upon, or against him, etc. All necessary preliminaries for the trial of this case are shown by ther record; and the trial resulted in the conviction of the accused for the offense of murder in the second degree; the jury fixed his punishment at imprisonment for fifteen years. In accordance with the verdict of the jury, the court duly pronounced and entered judgment against him and sentenced him to imprisonment in the penitentiary for fifteen years. From this judgment of conviction this appeal was taken.
In this case there was no contention on the part of the state that this appellant intentionally killed the deceased, for, without dispute or conflict, it was shown that the deceased was entirely unknown to the defendant, that he had never seen him before he was killed or until the time he was killed.
The state, however, insisted that the homicide complained of was the result of the act of this appellant, and that such act was greatly dangerous to the lives of others, and evidenced a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any preconceived purpose to deprive any particular person of life, and as a result was guilty of murder. This rule of law was laid down in the case of Mitchell v. State, 60 Ala. 26, and has been many times reaffirmed and followed by the appellate courts of this state.
The evidence disclosed without dispute that this appellant and one Sam Freeman, both of whom were intoxicated or under the influence of whisky, were in a large and practically new closed seven-passenger Lincoln car, and were traveling at a speed of from 40 to 65 miles an hour on the public streets of the city of Birmingham, and while running at such rate of speed turned a corner and the car struck the deceased, who at the time was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jolly v. State
...1, 83 So.2d 607, affirmed, 263 Ala. 641, 83 So.2d 613 (1953); Williams v. State, 30 Ala.App. 437, 7 So.2d 511 (1942); Reed v. State, 25 Ala.App. 18, 142 So. 441, cert. denied, 225 Ala. 219, 142 So. 442 "The argument that the gross negligence or wanton misconduct of the driver of an automobi......
-
Commander v. State
...1, 83 So.2d 607, affirmed, 263 Ala. 641, 83 So.2d 613 (1953); Williams v. State, 30 Ala.App. 437, 7 So.2d 511 (1942); Reed v. State, 25 Ala.App. 18, 142 So. 441, cert. denied, 225 Ala. 219, 142 So. 442 The argument that the gross negligence or wanton misconduct of the driver of an automobil......
-
Whitt v. State, 8 Div. 43
...of life. Under such circumstances his acts are unlawful and without legal excuse, and malice may be inferred therefrom. Reed v. State, 25 Ala.App. 18, 142 So. 441; Williams v. State, 30 Ala.App. 437, 7 So.2d 511; Hyde v. State, 230 Ala. 243, 160 So. This statement was quoted with approval b......
-
Nixon v. State
...found in this jurisdiction in which a conviction for murder in the second degree caused by an automobile was affirmed is Reed v. State, 25 Ala.App. 18, 142 So. 441, 442, certiorari denied 225 Ala. 219, 142 So. 442. The indictment was for murder in the first degree. As to the oral charge of ......