Sandford v. State

• Decision Date: 21 December 1911
• Citation: 57 So. 134,2 Ala.App. 81
• Parties: SANDFORD v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

57 So. 134

2 Ala.App. 81

SANDFORD v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

December 21, 1911

Appeal from Circuit Court, Fayette County; Bernard Harwood, Judge.

Boss Sandford was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The following charges were refused to defendant: (5) "I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, if you believe the defendant shot the deceased in his home, or if you also believe deceased was assailing defendant in his own home, the defendant did not have to retreat, but had the protection of his home to excuse him from retreating, and the law does not require one to fly from his home and give up the protection of his house to his adversary." (9) "I charge you that the law does not require that a man who is without fault shall lose his own life in order to spare that of his assailant. We are not commanded to love our neighbor better than ourselves." (10) "I charge you that if you believe the defendant was not at fault in bringing on the difficulty, that he was assailed by the deceased in his own home, that he could then stand his own ground and defend himself, even to the extent of taking human life." (12) "I charge you that in the eyes of the law every man's home is regarded as his castle, from which he is not required to retreat, and, if assailed, he is justifiable in taking life, in order to save his own life or his body from great harm." (45) "If the jury believes from the evidence that the deceased had threatened to kill the defendant, and if, at the time of the killing, the deceased was manifesting an intention of carrying such threats into execution, or that from the acts of the deceased at the time of the killing it would have appeared to a reasonable mind that the deceased was attempting to execute the threats against the defendant, then the defendant was justified in taking the life of said deceased." (48) "I charge you that the law is that every person has the right to defend himself, and may take the life of his assailant in defending himself from death or great bodily harm; and the necessity need not be actual, but the circumstances must be such as to impress him with the reasonable belief that such necessity is impending." (50) "The court charges the jury that the defendant is authorized under the statute to testify in his own behalf, and the jury have a right to give all the credit to his own statement." (57) "I charge you that if you believe that deceased has made threats against defendant's life, which had been communicated to him then you may consider the same as tending to show a reasonableness for defendant's apprehension of danger of death or serious bodily harm from the attack made upon him by the deceased; and if the jury would believe the deceased was the aggressor, then they must acquit the defendant." (59) "I charge you that we are not commanded to lose our own life in order to save that of one who assails it, and when assailed in the home of defendant, or yard or place of business, he need not retreat, but may use measures to save his own life, even to the extent of killing his assailant, if he was without fault in bringing on the difficulty."

Beasley & Wright, for appellant.

R. C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PELHAM J.

Under an indictment charging murder in the second degree, the defendant was convicted of the offense charged. The defendant admitted the killing, but claimed that he acted in self-defense; the only eyewitness to the homicide being the defendant.

Boss Sandford, the defendant, was the son-in-law of Yancy Sexton, the deceased, and the parties lived on the same place, close neighbors, but in separate houses, their respective homes being about 200 yards apart, Sandford, the son-in-law, renting from his father-in-law, Sexton. On the morning of the tragedy, Sexton left his home between daylight and sunup, and went over to the house of Sandford, where he was shot and killed by Sandford in the back yard near the steps leading into the house. No one else, save the principals, was present or saw the shooting, and the state relied for a conviction on the circumstances connected with and leading up to the shooting, the physical conditions surrounding the dead body of the slain party when found, the nature and location of the wound, etc., and the statements made by the defendant immediately after the shooting. The wife of the deceased testified that, when the deceased left home to go to the defendant's house, he had no weapon that he carried a bucket of slop, and went past the pasture to feed the hogs; that in about 10 minutes after the deceased left home she heard the gun fire in the direction of Sandford's house, whereupon she ran to the door of her house and heard the defendant's wife (her daughter) screaming; and that she immediately went over to Sandford's house, where she found her husband lying in the back yard dead near the steps leading into the house with a gunshot wound in his body. This witness' testimony is confused and contradictory with reference to seeing the axe and where it was lying with reference to the deceased body but the state's witness Butler, who arrived on the scene of the killing at about the same time as Mrs. Sexton, testified that the axe was lying "right out in front of the body," and that the handle was across his legs. Several other witnesses introduced by the state who came to the place only a few minutes after the witness Butler testified to substantially the same facts as to the position in which the body and axe were found. The wound on the deceased's body was shown by the state to be about 1 1/2 inches in diameter, and about 1 1/2 to 2 inches from the hip bone, "kinder back," and ranging "straight through," as expressed by one of the witnesses. All of the state's witnesses who came to the scene of the shooting, including the wife of the deceased, testified that the defendant stated to them when they came up immediately after the shooting that Yancy was advancing with an axe drawn on him (defendant), and that he had to shoot in self-defense. The defendant proved threats made by the deceased, and, as a witness in his own behalf testified, that the deceased came around the house with an axe and called to him (defendant) to come out, that he was going to kill him. The top of the back steps of the house was about three feet from the ground, and defendant testified that, when deceased came up to the steps with the axe drawn and advancing on him in striking distance, he reached around inside the door facing, picked up the gun, pointed it in the direction of deceased, and fired, that he was on the top step, and that deceased was on the ground near the steps when he shot.

The state's counsel asked the wife of the deceased when she was testifying as a witness in behalf of the state if the deceased and defendant had an engagement to go to town on the day of the killing, and the witness was allowed to testify, against the objection of the defendant, that they did. This evidence was properly admitted as explanatory of the conduct and object of the deceased in going to the home of the defendant.

There was no error committed by the court in refusing to allow the defendant to show, on the cross-examination of Mrs. Sexton, what he said and how he acted towards her when she was on the way to his house after the shooting. The defendant's good will or ill will towards the deceased's wife was not an issue in the case.

The shirt worn by the deceased at the time he...