Scroggins v. State

• Decision Date: 02 February 1899
• Citation: 120 Ala. 369,25 So. 180
• Parties: SCROGGINS ET AL. v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

25 So. 180

120 Ala. 369

SCROGGINS ET AL. v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 2, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Lawrence county; Thomas R. Roulhac Judge.

Hollis Scroggins and Chassie Scroggins were indicted, tried and convicted for an assault upon one Gabe Chilcoat, with a pistol, with the intent to murder, and were sentenced to the penitentiary for four years, and they appeal. Affirmed.

On the trial of the cause, the evidence for the state tended to show that while Gabe Chilcoat was riding horseback along a country road, to town, defendants stopped him by catching hold of the horse's bridle, and after exchanging a few words, one of the defendants fired upon him, and after said Chilcoat had fallen from his horse and turned to run, said defendant continued to fire; that said Chilcoat was shot by the defendants, or one of them, seven times.

The evidence for the defendants tended to show that said Chilcoat had seduced their sister; that they learned of this fact the night before the shooting, and that when they approached said Chilcoat they asked him why he seduced their sister; that Chilcoat replied that he had not done so, and upon being told that they knew he had, Chilcoat cursed them, and after saying that he was ready for them, threw his right hand behind him to his pistol pocket, and that when that was done, one of the defendants drew his pistol and began firing at him. There were other witnesses introduced by the defendants, whose testimony tended to show that Chilcoat had ruined the defendants' sister.

Upon the examination of the said sister, after she had testified to her seduction by said Chilcoat, she was asked whether or not said Chilcoat had had illicit relations with her the last time he was at her father's house, and if he told her on said day that if her father and brothers ever said anything about it to him he would kill them. The solicitor objected to this question, the court sustained the objection and the defendants excepted. Thereupon the defendants asked said witness whether or not said Chilcoat was the father of her illegitimate child. The solicitor objected to this question the court sustained the objection and the defendants duly excepted.

Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the court in its general charge to the jury, among others, gave the following instructions: (1) "I charge you, gentlemen of the jury that if the defendants approached Chilcoat and asked him why he had seduced their sister and that Chilcoat replied that he had not done so, and that the defendants then said to him 'You need not deny it for you know you are guilty,' the defendants are not without fault in bringing on the difficulty and cannot invoke the doctrine of self-defense." (2) "I charge you that if you believe the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the assault in this case, if one was committed, was in a sudden rencounter or affray and caused by the defendant by the use of deadly weapons which were concealed before the commencement of the fight, Chilcoat, their adversary, having no deadly weapon drawn, then the defendants would be guilty of an assault with intent to murder." To the giving of each of these charges the defendants separately excepted, and also separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of the following charges requested by them. (3) "If the defendants in this case did not provoke or bring on the difficulty, but approached Chilcoat in an orderly and peaceful manner, and Chilcoat replied angrily and insultingly, placed his hands upon or in the direction of his pistol pocket in such a manner as to indicate to a reasonable man that his purpose was to draw and fire, the defendants were authorized to anticipate him and fire first. I charge you further that the defendants would be entitled to an acquittal at your hands, if it should turn out that Chilcoat was unarmed, provided they were without fault." (4) "Gentlemen, the defendants are charged with the offense of an assault with intent to murder Gabe Chilcoat, which under our law is a felony. The law is given you in charge by the court, but you are the sole judges of the testimony. As jurors it is your duty to give the evidence your most careful consideration. If from all the evidence you believe beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendants are guilty of an assault with intent...