Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 28 November 1895 |
| Citation | 18 So. 732,108 Ala. 14 |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Elmore county; N. D. Denson, Judge.
Frank Robinson was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Affirmed.
The appellant was indicted and tried for the murder of one Alonzo Hooper, was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for 35 years. The testimony for the state tended to show that the defendant killed Alonzo Hooper by shooting him with a pistol; that all three of the shots fired by the defendant at the deceased took effect; and that, at the time he was shot by defendant, the deceased was running. The killing occurred near a spring on the land owned by the defendant's father, and about 100 yards from the house of defendant's father. The proof offered by the defendant tended to show: That deceased, who was a married man, and defendant's 16 year old sister, were standing near the spring, near each other, and deceased was talking to her when the defendant came up in the rear of the deceased and, when within a few feet of the deceased, the defendant asked him: "What does this mean?" That deceased confronted him, and said: "What?" and defendant replied: That deceased replied: "I am a free man, and go where I please." Defendant then said to deceased: "You are a grand rascal." Deceased said: "Frank Robinson don't call me a rascal." Defendant replied "You are a rascal, and less than a rascal." Thereupon deceased drew a pistol, and fired twice at defendant; defendant then fired three shots at deceased inflicting wounds from which he died. During the progress of the trial, the defendant, on cross-examination of witness Jones (who was a witness for the state) and a brother-in-law of the deceased, asked this question: "Did you see a note that defendant's sister wrote to the deceased?" The witness answered that he did. The defendant then asked the witness this question: "Was not that note in reply to one previously written by deceased to defendant's sister, asking her to meet him at the spring where the difficulty occurred, for the purpose of having criminal intercourse with her?" To this question the solicitor objected. The court sustained the objection, and the defendant duly excepted to the ruling of the court. Defendant's counsel stated that the purpose of the question was to show by the witness that deceased's purpose at the spring at the time of the killing was to have sexual intercourse with defendant's sister, and that deceased had written her (defendant's sister) a note on Thursday, before the killing (which occurred on Saturday afternoon), asking her to meet him at the spring on said evening, for the purpose of having intercourse with her; that the witness had seen a reply to said note, which reply was written by the sister; that it was seen by witness on Friday night, before the killing; that witness had found the same note on the body of deceased after the killing; and that the witness knew the substance of the note. The solicitor interposed an objection to the question, and the court sustained the objection, and the defendant duly excepted to this ruling of the court. The defendant separately excepted to the giving of each of the following written charges, which were given by the court at the request of the state "(1) In case of homicide, the law presumes malice from the use of a deadly weapon, and casts on the defendant the onus of repelling this presumption, unless the evidence which proves the killing shows also that it was perpetrated without malice; and wherever malice is shown, and unrebutted by the circumstances of the killing, or by other facts in evidence there can be no conviction for any less degree of homicide." ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warren v. State
...to show that the killing was induced by, or was the result of such passion, then it is not admissible to rebut malice. In Robinson's Case, 108 Ala. 14, 18 So. 732, the offered in evidence a letter found on the person of the deceased, written by a sister of defendant, which letter showed ill......
-
Gafford v. State
... ... if Rogers was not then himself aggressing upon Hale, and, if ... he was so aggressing, he could not invoke the principle of ... self-defense. Under the circumstances in proof in that case, ... the evidence there offered was properly excluded, under the ... general rule declared in Robinson v. State, 108 Ala ... 14, 18 So. 732, which was referred to in the opinion ... The ... other rulings of the circuit court appear to be without ... error; but, for those pointed out herein, it results that the ... judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the cause ... ...
-
Lester v. State
...State, 32 Ala.App. 477, 27 So.2d 228, 230, as follows: 'Despite cases in our reports seeming to state a different rule (see Robinson v. State, 108 Ala. 14, 18 So. 732; Ragsdale v. State, 12 Ala.App. 1, 67 So. 783; McBryde v. State, 156 Ala. 44, 47 So. 302), it is now definitely settled that......
-
Ragland v. State
... ... the facts would have been admissible to eliminate the element ... of malice from the act, by referring it to passion which had ... not had time to cool, thus reducing the homicide [under the ... plea of not guilty] to manslaughter." Rogers v ... State, 117 Ala. 14, 22 So. 666; Robinson v ... State, 108 Ala. 16, 18 So. 732; McNeill v. State, 102 ... Ala. 126, 15 So. 352; Hooks v. State, 99 Ala. 166, ... 13 So. 767. In the last-cited case, appears the expression, ... to the effect, that cooling time is a question of fact for ... the determination of the jury ... [27 So ... ...