Shelton v. State

• Decision Date: 15 June 1905
• Citation: 144 Ala. 106,42 So. 30
• Parties: SHELTON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

42 So. 30

144 Ala. 106

SHELTON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 15, 1905

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; E. B. Almon, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Dee Shelton was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed.

The evidence tended to show that on a Sunday morning the family of the deceased went to church, leaving him at home. On their return, about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, they found him dead, and it was shown that his death was caused by a blow on the head with a blunt instrument, and by a pistol shot through the head. It was shown that about 12 months before the defendant had been warned by the deceased not to pass through the premises of the latter, and defendant had made some threat later, that he would kill deceased if he came out on him again. It was shown that at the time of his death the deceased owned a pistol, which came in a box, the box having a picture of the pistol, and the name of the maker on it. It was shown that shortly after the killing this pistol was missing, and that the defendant had a pistol which witnesses said answered the description of the one owned by the deceased, and which also corresponded with the picture and the name on the box in which the deceased got the pistol owned by him. This pistol, it was shown, the defendant shortly after the death of the deceased, gave to one Barnett having lost it to him in a game of "craps." On Sunday evening, after the deceased was discovered dead, a large number of people, including the defendant, were at his house, from whence the defendant went home. On Monday morning certain hound dogs were taken to the house, and made to smell certain papers of the deceased which had been found by his family, disarranged, on their return from church. These dogs took several starts, but finally led to the house and room of the defendant. The defendant was present when the dogs were taken to the house of the deceased and went with others following them on their trail. Shortly after this the defendant was told that he would be arrested, charged with the murder of the deceased, who was his uncle; that, on being so informed, the defendant said: "If Uncle Mark had treated you like he has treated us, you would have wanted to kill him, too." On behalf of the defendant, and in explanation of his statement with reference to his Uncle Mark, it was shown that the family of the defendant believed that the deceased had defrauded the mother of the defendant in a division of property between her and the deceased coming to them from a deceased parent. Also, in reference to the pistol, the defendant testified that the pistol, which was so introduced in evidence, and which he lost in a game of craps, came into his possession from one Black, a stranger who proposed to sell it to him for $3.50. There was conflict in the testimony, but the above is sufficient for an understanding of the charges of the trial court, and the opinion herein.

The general charge of the court to the jury, to which exceptions were taken, was as follows: "If there is conflict in the evidence, you should reconcile such conflict if you can do so as to make all the evidence speak the truth; but if there is such conflict, and you are unable to reconcile it, then it is for you to say which you believe." The court, of its own motion, also charged the jury: "Confessions of a defendant in cases of this kind are received with great caution. They are easily fabricated, and the detection and exposure of their fallacy is often difficult. But when confessions are deliberately and precisely identified, they are among the most satisfactory and effectual proofs of guilt. In consideration and determination of the credibility of confessions, or the effect and weight to which they are entitled, the jury must look to all the facts and circumstances under which the confessions are made; those which are introduced before the court, if shown to them, as well as any other that may be introduced." Written charges were requested by the defendant, and refused by the court, numbered and as follows: "Unless the evidence of the defendant's guilt is so full and convincing that the jury would venture to act upon it in matters of the greatest importance to themselves, then I charge you that the case is not made out by that measure of proof that the law requires in criminal cases, and you must find the defendant not guilty." "(8) The evidence in this case must convince the mind of each individual member of the jury to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, and unless the evidence of guilt be such that each individual member of the jury, after careful consideration thereof, would not hesitate to act upon it in matters of the highest importance to themselves, then the case is not made out by that measure of proof required in criminal cases, and you cannot find the defendant guilty." "(11) Unless the jury find from the evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that the pistol lost in a game of craps to Barnett was the pistol of W. A. Hammonds and was at the house of W. A. Hammonds when he was killed, then, I charge you that the defendant's possession of the pistol cannot be looked to by you as evidence of guilt. (12) The jury must find from the evidence to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt that the pistol lost by the defendant to Henry Barnett in the game of craps was the pistol of W. A. Hammonds, and was at the house of W. A. Hammonds at the time he was killed, before they can look to the possession of the pistol by the defendant and his explanation of his possession as evidence of guilt. (13) Before you can consider defendant's possession of the pistol lost to Henry Barnett as evidence of guilt, you must believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the pistol was the pistol of W. A. Hammonds, and was in the house of W. A. Hammonds at the time he was killed. (14) The defendant is not required to make any explanation of his possession of the pistol lost in the game of craps to Henry Barnett, unless the jury are convinced from the evidence to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt that said pistol was the pistol of W. A. Hammonds, and in his house at the time of the killing, and unless the jury are so convinced, they will not consider any explanation made by the defendant of his possession of the pistol. (15) Unless the jury believe from the evidence to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt that the pistol lost in the game of craps to Henry Barnett was the pistol of W. A. Hammonds and was in the house of W. A. Hammonds when he was killed, then I charge you that it is wholly immaterial whether the explanation made by the defendant of his possession, is reasonable or not, and you will not give any consideration to such explanation. (16) Gentlemen of the jury, I charge you that the evidence in this case does not establish the fact that the pistol lost by the defendant to Henry Barnett was in the house of W. A. Hammonds, or about the place when he was killed; and you cannot consider defendant's possession of said pistol, or his explanation of such possession, as evidence of defendant's guilt." "(18) The only purpose for which you can consider the presence of the hounds at the scene of the killing on Monday after the killing, if you find from the evidence that they were there, and the defendant was with them, is a mere circumstance tending to show an absence of conscious guilt on the part of the defendant. (19) The presence and actions of the hounds at the place of the killing on Monday, after the killing, if you find they were there, and did anything, from the evidence, can only be considered by you as a circumstance tending to show a want of conscious guilt on the part of the defendant." The defendant also excepted to the following part of the general charge of the court to the jury: "The defendant was examined in his own behalf. You should weigh and pass on his evidence as you do other witnesses, but in doing so you should take into consideration that he is an interested witness, and if convicted, he will suffer the punishment fixed by the jury." The court, at written request of the solicitor, gave the following charge: "(1) In weighing and considering the evidence of the defendant, the jury may take into consideration the fact that he is the defendant and interested in the result of the...