Russell v. State
| Decision Date | 18 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 62 |
| Citation | 201 Ala. 572,78 So. 916 |
| Parties | RUSSELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; Thomas W. Wert, Judge.
William D. Russell was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
R.E Smith, of Huntsville, and John R. Sample, of Hartsells, for appellant.
F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and Emmett S. Thigpen, Asst. Atty. Gen (Callahan & Harris, of Decatur, of counsel), for the State.
The right to challenge, under section 7278 of the Code of 1907 because the juror has a fixed opinion against capital or penitentiary punishment is available only to the state, and it can either exercise or waive this right. Wesley v. State, 61 Ala. 282; Harrison v. State, 79 Ala. 29; Thayer v. State, 138 Ala. 49, 35 So. 406.
When the sanity of the person is being investigated and determined, and there is other proof tending to establish the mental incapacity of said person, it is competent to show in connection therewith the insanity of his ancestors or other blood relatives. Wear v. Wear, 76 So. 111; 7 Ency. of Ev. 453, 454; 22 Cyc. pp. 1117, 1118. The trial court erred in not letting the defendant prove by the probate records that his granduncle had been declared a non compos mentis and had a legal guardian, and also that his cousin Mrs. Draper had been committed to the insane asylum and died while an inmate of said institution. 14 R.C.L. § 73, p. 621. True, the relationship was rather remote, but they were blood relatives of the defendant, and the remoteness merely affected the weight and probative force of the evidence and not its competency. "It seems that such evidence is admissible in all cases, being of more or less weight according to the degree of relationship.". " 14 R.C.L. § 70, p. 619. Nor can it be held that the defendant got the benefit of this proof in other respects. The trial court seems to have denied him all chance to show the insanity of Mrs. Draper, and while one witness at one time was permitted to prove that he considered the uncle as a person of unsound mind, most of the facts upon which this opinion was based were excluded. The record, produced by the witness Skeggs, may not have been the best evidence or conclusive as to the mental condition of the uncle W.C. Russell and the cousin Mrs. Draper, or binding upon them or their privies in estate, but their insanity in the present case was collateral and the facts offered were at least prima facie evidence that they were insane, in a proceeding which neither affected them nor their estate. 14 R.C.L. § 73, p. 621. The evidence offered here was more specific than that considered in the case of James v. State, 193 Ala. 55, 69 So. 569.
The recent case of Todd v. Ward, 77 So. 731, involved an inquisition of lunacy subsequent to the transaction involved, and like the case of Frederic v. Wilkins, 182 Ala. 343, 62 So. 518, cited and followed, involved a direct inquiry into the mental condition of the person involved in the inquisition; but here the insanity of the uncle and cousin in the case at bar was collaterally involved as an evidential fact bearing upon the sanity of another who was undergoing investigation.
Upon the trial of the issue of insanity much latitude is given both the state and defendant as to his acts, condition, and conduct, not only at the time of the offense, but prior and subsequent thereto. McAllister v. State, 17 Ala. 434, 52 Am.Dec. 180; McCurry v. Hooper, 12 Ala. 823, 46 Am.Dec. 280. We do not think that the trial court committed reversible error otherwise than as above noted in ruling upon the evidence.
The books from which extracts were read to the jury are standard works, and the trial court did not err in permitting them introduced and read to the jury. Stoudenmeier v. Williamson, 29 Ala. 558; Bales v. State, 63 Ala. 30; Adler v. State, 55 Ala. 23.
The oral charge as excepted to by the defendant was free from reversible error. Pritchard v. Fowler, 171 Ala. 662, 55 So. 147.
We do not think that reversible error can be predicated upon the refusal of the trial court to exclude so much of the argument of counsel as was excepted to by the defendant.
Charges 44 and 46, refused the defendant, assert a correct proposition, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. State
...Am. Dec. 180; Braham v. State, 143 Ala. 28, 38 So. 919; Howard v. State, 172 Ala. 402, 55 So. 255, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 990; Russell v. State, 201 Ala. 574, 78 So. 916; Greenl. on Ev. (16th Ed.) p. 58. Text-books on mental diseases, shown to be standard works, may be, and were, introduced in......
-
Barbour v. State, 6 Div. 522
...65, 70, 142 So. 432; Birchfield v. State, 217 Ala. 225, 228, 115 So. 297; Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 42, 95 So. 171; Russell v. State, 201 Ala. 572, 78 So. 916; Cawley v. State, 133 Ala. 128, 138, 32 So. 227; McLean v. State, 16 Ala. 672, 680. These inquiries, however, are subject to t......
-
Burns v. State, 6 Div. 965.
...is a false belief." In this ruling of the court there was error Watkins v. Potts, 219 Ala. 427, 122 So. 416, 65 A. L. R. 1097; Russell v. State, 201 Ala. 572. 78 So. Stoudenmeier v. Williamson, 29 Ala. 558; Adler v. State, 55 Ala. 23; Bales v. State, 63 Ala. 30. That phase of insanity shoul......
-
Bankhead v. State
...... burden of proof required of the State before a conviction of. guilt could be returned. . . So far. as our search discloses refused requested charge 25 was held. to state a correct proposition of law in Mitchell v. State, 129 Ala. 23, 30 So. 348; Russell v. State, 201 Ala. 572, 78 So. 916; and Newton v. State, 11 Ala.App. 157, 65 So. 697. A contrary view was. entertained by the Supreme Court in Cagle v. State, 211 Ala. 346, 100 So. 318, and by this court in Bringhurst v. State, 31 Ala.App. 608, 20 So.2d 885. We reaffirm the. views we ......