Strickland v. State

• Decision Date: 16 May 1907
• Citation: 151 Ala. 31,44 So. 90
• Parties: STRICKLAND v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

44 So. 90

151 Ala. 31

STRICKLAND v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 16, 1907

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; D. A. Greene, Judge.

Ed Strickland was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The defendant was indicted for killing one Abernathy by shooting him with a pistol. The facts on which the case was tried, as developed by the state's testimony, were that complaint was made to some of the officers that gambling was going on at a certain house, and they were asked to put a stop to it. Abernathy was a deputy sheriff, and went with several other officers to the house where the shooting occurred. Abernathy entered the door, and as he did so a fusilade of shots were fired; he receiving two mortal wounds, one made by a 45-caliber bullet, and the other by a smaller bullet. He also received two other wounds not necessarily fatal. From the two wounds first mentioned he died in about ten minutes. The basis of the motion in arrest of judgment is sufficiently stated in the opinion. When the witness Crawford was being examined on his voir dire, he stated that he had an opinion that might bias his verdict, but that he could try the case and render verdict in accordance with the evidence. The defendant asked to challenge him for cause, the court declined the request, and the defendant excepted, and then challenged the juror peremptorily.

The evidence tended to show that the defendant had in his possession a pair of handcuffs, which some of the witnesses identified as closely resembling those of the deceased, and that when deceased was shot he was attempting or had placed these handcuffs on one Scott. He was asked by the deputy who arrested him where he got the handcuffs, and stated that he had cut them off of Scott. The evidence also tended to show that, when these questions were asked and answers made, the defendant had not been made aware of the charge on which he was arrested. Among his other replies, the defendant stated that the handcuffs belonged to the deputy who shot at Littleton. Witness Helton was asked who was present during this conversation, and replied that he and the negro were present, and if anybody else was there he did not know it and was then asked by the defendant if there was not always a crowd of people there, to which objection was sustained. Mrs Abernathy, the wife of deceased, was present in the courtroom during the trial, while the other witnesses were under the rule, and on being called to testify by the state as to the identity of the handcuffs the defendant objected, but the court permitted her to testify. The other objections to evidence are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

In his oral charge the court, among other things, said: "I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that, if the defendant killed Abernathy while resisting lawful arrest being made in the proper manner, he would be guilty of murder." The defendant reserved an exception to this part of the charge.

The following charges were requested by the defendant, and refused: "(A) The court charges the jury that, in order to convict the defendant upon the evidence of circumstances it is necessary, not only that all the circumstances concur to show that the defendant committed the crime charged, but that they are inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. It is not sufficient that the circumstances proved coincide with, and therefore render probable, the hypothesis sought to be established by the prosecution; but they must exclude to a moral certainty every other hypothesis but the single one of guilt, or the jury must find the defendant not guilty.

"(B) The court charges the jury that the law presumes the defendant to be innocent of the commission of any crime, and this presumption continues to go in his favor throughout the trial, step by step; and you cannot find the defendant guilty of a crime within the indictment until the evidence in the case satisfies you beyond all reasonable doubt of his guilt and so long as you, or any of you, have a reasonable doubt as to the existence of any of the elements necessary to constitute the crime or crimes within the indictment, you should find the defendant not guilty.

"(C) The law is as much vindicated by the acquittal of an innocent person as by the conviction of a guilty one.

"(D) The law is that no man can be convicted of a felony on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice; and, if the jury believe from the evidence that Jim Hill and Columbus Ward were each an accomplice, the jury cannot find the defendant guilty.

"(E) There is no evidence that defendant aided or abetted in causing the death of Mr. Abernathy.

"(F) The court charges you that you must receive alleged confession with great caution.

"(G) If the defendant did not act with premeditation in the alleged shooting, he would not have been guilty of murder.

"(H) All confessions are prima facie involuntary, and must be received and considered with great caution.

"(I) The jury should consider with great care the testimony of a witness who is interested, or who may be swearing to shield himself from prosecution.

"(J) If the jury believe the evidence, they cannot find the defendant guilty.

"(K) The court charges the jury that under all the evidence in this case the character of Columbus Ward has been impeached.

"(L) The court charges the jury that under all the evidence the deceased was guilty of an unlawful arrest, or an attempt at an arrest.

"(M) If the jury believe from the evidence that the deceased fired the first shot and that the defendant under a sudden passion engendered by said shot, he would not be guilty of murder as charged in the indictment."

The record shows a motion in arrest of judgment on many grounds with reference to the drawing and impaneling of the grand jury that found the indictment, and of the drawing, service, and impaneling of the petit jurors for the trial of the cause, and of the manner of arrangement and the appointment of counsel, the latter part of which seems to have been insisted upon. The insistence is sufficiently stated in the opinion. Exception was reserved to overruling of this motion.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced to death.

B. L Chappell and B. M. Allen, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen.,...