Robinson v. State

• Decision Date: 02 April 1931
• Docket Number: 2 Div. 973.
• Citation: 133 So. 578,222 Ala. 541
• Parties: ROBINSON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

133 So. 578

222 Ala. 541

ROBINSON v. STATE.

2 Div. 973.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 2, 1931

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sumter County; Benj. F. Elmore, Judge.

Tom Robinson was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

James A. Mitchell, of Livingston, and Patton & Patton, of Carrollton, for appellant.

Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

GARDNER J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and the extreme penalty of death imposed.

The evidence for the state tends to show that deceased, Grover Boyd, was shot by both Ollis and John Robinson, sons of defendant, at or about the same time that Ollis and Esau another son of defendant, were engaged in a difficulty with Clarence Boyd, a nephew of deceased, and in which defendant had participated, though he struck no blow (having only a stick in his hands and fired no shot), but was turned back by deceased, who, it seems, was going to the rescue of his nephew; that all of this arose over a battery, as to which Clarence Boyd had some words with Esau about an hour or hour and a half before; that defendant had learned of this and came in a car with Ollis and Esau to Emelle (the place of the difficulty), immediately looked for Clarence Boyd, and the difficulty at once followed in which Clarence was struck on the head with a bottle.

The evidence sufficed for a reasonable inference that a felonious assault upon Clarence Boyd was intended and in fact so resulted. No occasion here arises for a detailed discussion of the evidence.

After the introduction of numerous witnesses, the state rested, and defendant moved to exclude all the evidence upon the ground of its insufficiency to show a conspiracy or establish any crime against defendant, a practice permitted in criminal cases (Taylor v. State, 15 Ala. App. 72, 72 So. 557, citing Randolph v. State, 100 Ala. 139, 14 So. 792), though condemned in civil causes (Dorough v. Ala. Great So. R. Co., 221 Ala. 305, 128 So. 602).

We entertain the view the motion was properly denied. "The rule of criminal responsibility, in cases of conspiracy or combination, seems to be that each is responsible for everything done by his confederates which follows incidentally, in the execution of the common design, as one of its probable and natural consequences, even though it was not intended as a part of the original design or common plan." Williams v. State, 81 Ala. 1, 1 So. 179, 183, 60 Am. Rep. 133. Nor is it essential that a conspiracy be shown by positive evidence. It may be established by circumstantial proof, may be inferred from the conduct of the participants, and from other facts in evidence. Martin v. State, 89 Ala. 115, 8 So. 23, 18 Am. St. Rep. 91; Collins v. State, 138 Ala. 57, 34 So. 993; Cleveland v. State; 20 Ala. App. 426, 103 So. 707, certiorari denied 212 Ala. 635, 103 So. 711. A prima facie case was established for submission of the question of a conspiracy to the jury. Authorities supra.

In response to the motion the trial court repeated some of the tendencies of the evidence, to which no objection was interposed,...