Ridgell v. State

• Decision Date: 18 June 1908
• Parties: RIDGELL v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

47 So. 71

156 Ala. 10

RIDGELL v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 18, 1908

Appeal from Circuit Court, Geneva County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.

Tom Ridgell was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The defendant was indicted for killing one John McGehee by cutting him with a knife. The facts on which the opinion is rested sufficiently appear therein. The following charges were refused to the defendant: "(14) If the jury believe from all the facts of the case that the conduct of the deceased was such towards the defendant at the time of the killing as to create in the mind of defendant a just apprehension of apparent imminent danger to his limb or life he could lawfully act upon such appearances and kill his assailant, provided defendant was free from fault in bringing on the difficulty. (14 1/2) If the deceased, McGehee commenced the difficulty by using towards the defendant insulting or abusive language, and if the defendant merely answered the insult and did nothing more, and if thereupon deceased immediately struck defendant with a bottle, and used or attempted to use his knife on defendant, and if thereupon defendant cut the deceased, and such cutting was, or reasonably appeared to be, necessary to protect defendant from grievous bodily harm, and if there was open to defendant no reasonable mode of escape without increasing his danger or apparent danger, then you will find defendant not guilty."

W. O. Mulkey and J. R. Cooper, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

DOWDELL J.

We think, from the record here, that it was sufficiently shown on the trial, in the selection of the jury, that the name of the juror in the typewritten copy served on the defendant, and numbered 38, was S. H. Tew, corresponding with that number and name on the slip drawn from the hat, and the court committed no error in overruling the motion to quash the venire. It plainly appears in the record before us that the copyist, in making a list of the jurors, had in the first instance written the wrong name, and then corrected the mistake by crossing out this wrong name and inserting the right name--S. H. Tew.

The court permitted the state to show threats by the defendant against the deceased before proof of the corpus delicti. This was irregular, but the subsequent introduction of evidence of the killing of the deceased by the defendant cured the error, if it could be termed such.

One Hartley was introduced and examined as a witness on behalf of the defendant. On his cross-examination by the state the solicitor asked the witness the following question: "Did you not, at the time when the preliminary trial in this case was to be had, in the town of Geneva, in the presence of J D. Jenkins and others, state that on the night of the cutting, just after separating deceased and defendant, that you had...