Smith v. State

• Decision Date: 05 June 1901
• Parties: SMITH v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

30 So. 432

130 Ala. 95

SMITH v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 5, 1901

Appeal from city court of Anniston; James W. Lapsley, Judge.

Richard Smith was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The evidence showed that the deceased and the defendant were boys, and got to quarreling, and threw at one another; that the deceased threw the defendant down, and that upon getting up the defendant picked up a rock or brick, and threw it at the deceased, which struck him on the head, just above his right ear, and that from the effects of this wound the deceased died. It was shown that the deceased was 11 years old. The father of the defendant testified that the defendant was not quite 11 years old at the time of the trial. The father of the defendant testified that the father of the deceased told him the morning the defendant was arrested that the defendant was 12 or 13 years of age. The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges: "(1) The court charges you, gentlemen, that if you have a reasonable doubt, generated by all the evidence in this cause, as to whether the defendant acted in self-defense or not, then you should acquit. (2) If the jury find from the evidence that the deceased at the time the blow was struck was making an assault upon the defendant, and that the defendant, in resisting said attack, used force not greatly disproportionate to the character of the assault, and death accidentally resulted, this would be self-defense, and the jury should acquit him. (3) Even though the jury should be satisfied that the defendant is the guilty agent, and he committed the act charged in the indictment, yet if they further find that he was at the time under 14 years of age they must acquit him, unless they are further satisfied by the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he was at the time of sufficient intelligence to be fully aware of the nature and consequences of the act, and that he plainly showed intelligent malice in the manner of executing it. (4) The court charges the jury that the only foundation of a verdict of guilty in this cause is that the entire jury shall believe beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty that the defendant is guilty as charged in the indictment, to the exclusion of every probability of his innocence and every reasonable doubt as to his guilt; and if the prosecution has failed to furnish such measure of proof, and to so impress the minds of the jury of his guilt, they should find him not guilty. (5) Though the jury find from the evidence that the defendant threw the rock, but find that he was under 14 years of age at the time, they cannot...