Rohn v. State

Decision Date15 January 1914
Docket Number649
Citation65 So. 42,186 Ala. 5
PartiesROHN v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied April 16, 1914

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; William E. Fort Judge.

Harry Rohn, alias Harry Rohm, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Being without counsel, the court appointed counsel for defendant who discussed the case with defendant on several occasions. The case was subsequently continued to the fall term of the court, and on November 30, 1912, the case was reset for trial on December 9, 1912, at which time a postponement was ordered until December 11th, and again postponed on that date until December 12, 1912, when the case was finally tried. In the meantime the counsel appointed for the defendant had withdrawn from the case, and defendant retained the present counsel about August, 1912. The minute entry recites that on May 18, 1912, at the time of his arraignment and plea of not guilty, and also on the several occasions of postponement or continuance, defendant was present in his own proper person and by attorney. On December 11, 1912, his counsel moved the court to set aside the plea of not guilty heretofore filed and to substitute therefor a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. In support of this motion, defendant offered parol testimony tending to show that he had no counsel to advise or represent him until after the date of his arraignment and pleas of not guilty. This motion being overruled defendant's counsel suggested that defendant was then insane, and moved a suspension of the trial on that ground which motion was also overruled. Defendant introduced evidence to show his mental unsoundness both at the time of the homicide and at the time of the trial; the same evidence being used in support of each of the motions referred to.

The victim of the homicide was a married woman, in whose home defendant lodged and boarded, and with whom he was infatuated. There was no eyewitness to the killing, and defendant testified that he had taken the pistol from under his pillow and threatened to kill himself; that deceased seized the barrel of the pistol which was cocked, and, in the struggle for its possession, it was accidentally discharged. The bullet passed through the heart and body of deceased, and she died in a few minutes. The state was allowed, against defendant's objection, to prove that the bullet hole in the back of deceased was small and smooth, and that the hole in her breast was twice as large and somewhat ragged; and a medical witness for the state was allowed to testify that the entrance of a bullet, when fired into the body, will make a smaller and smoother wound that its exit. He based this statement on considerable personal experience in the examination of gunshot wounds, and was allowed to state further that in his opinion this bullet entered the back of deceased and came out at her breast. There were numerous written charges refused to the defendant not necessary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Burns v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 15, 1944
    ...discretion and is not reviewable on appeal in the absence of abuse of discretion. Granberry v. State, 184 Ala. 5, 63 So. 975; Rohn v. State, 186 Ala. 5, 65 So. 42; Whitfield v. State, 236 Ala. 312, 182 So. § 425 is not mandatory. Refusal to stay murder prosecution in order to appoint a comm......
  • Roan v. State, 7 Div. 135.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 9, 1932
    ...... physician and surgeon of long experience with gunshot wounds,. and an expert in such matters, who saw the body of the. deceased shortly after she received the wound, may give his. opinion as to how it was inflicted. Thaggard v. Vafes, 218 Ala. 609, 612, 119 So. 647; Rohn v. State, 186 Ala. 5, 65 So. 42; Landham v. Lloyd,. 223 Ala. 487, 136 So. 815; Dumas v. State, 159 Ala. 42, 49 So. 224, 133 Am. St. Rep. 17; McKee v. State,. 82 Ala. 32, 2 So. 451; Blackburn v. State, 22 Ala. App. 561, 117 So. 614. . . The. bill of exceptions recites:. . . . ......
  • Seibold v. State, 5 Div. 868
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • July 16, 1970
    ...inquisition as to the defendant's sanity under the provisions of this section at the time of trial is not revisable on appeal. Rohn v. State, 186 Ala. 5, 65 So. 42; Whitfield v. State, 236 Ala. 312, 182 So. The defendant argues in brief that he was denied those basic rights guaranteed by th......
  • Smarr v. State, 2 Div. 319
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • August 6, 1953
    ...justified in continuing with the trial of the cause and its action in not suspending the trial is not revisable on appeal. Rohn v. State, 186 Ala. 5, 65 So. 42; Whitfield v. State, 236 Ala. 312, 182 So. 42. See Campbell v. State, 257 Ala. 322, 58 So.2d Duly mindful of our duty in cases of t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT