Suttles v. State
| Decision Date | 10 February 1917 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 370 |
| Citation | 74 So. 400,15 Ala.App. 582 |
| Parties | SUTTLES v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; W.W, Haralson, Judge.
Orbe Suttles, alias, etc., was convicted of manslaughter and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
The person killed was one England, alleged to have been stabbed with a knife. The evidence was in conflict as to who did the stabbing, and as to who brought on the difficulty. Charge 2 refused to defendant, is as follows:
Hunt & Wolfes and Isbell & Scott, all of Ft. Payne, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and P.W. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant, under an indictment for murder in the first degree, was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and from this judgment of conviction he appeals. The ruling of the court in refusing a motion for a new trial in this case is not revisable here, the case having been tried prior to the act (Acts 1915, p. 722) which became effective September 22, 1915; hence said act is not applicable to this case. Prior to said act supra, a motion for a new trial in a criminal case was a matter to be determined by the trial court, and was entirely within its discretion. Burrage v State, 113 Ala. 108, 21 So. 213; Cooper v. State, 88 Ala. 107, 7 So. 47; Smith v. State, 165 Ala. 58, 51 So. 610.
The defendant objected to the following question, propounded by the state to witness Wade:
"Just tell the jury the conduct of England [deceased]; was his conduct there such as was objectionable?"
The court overruled said objection, and the witness was permitted to answer "that it was all right; he had good conduct there that night." We are of the opinion that the question was clearly objectionable, in that it called for a conclusion on the part of said witness and a conclusion based upon witness' standard as to what constitutes objectionable conduct, or good conduct, by which the defendant could, in no manner, be bound. The rule making it permissible under some circumstances for a witness to testify to what is termed a "collective fact" is not applicable here, for a collective fact is distinguishable and very different from a bare, arbitrary conclusion of a witness. The trial court erred in overruling the objection to said question and in permitting the witness to answer. Carney v. State, 79 Ala. 14.
There was no error in refusing charge 1, which was the general charge in favor of the defendant. It has been repeatedly held in this state that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weems v. State
...for new trial in criminal prosecutions was addressed to the trial court's discretion, and was not reviewable on appeal. Suttles v. State, 15 Ala.App. 582, 74 So. 400; Burrage v. State, 113 Ala. 108, 21 So. Cooper v. State, 88 Ala. 107, 7 So. 47; Smith v. State, 165 Ala. 50, 58, 51 So. 610, ......
-
Gaither v. State
... ... for "a reasonable doubt." Moore v. State, ... 19 Ala.App. 471, 98 So. 136. Refused charges 1 and 2 were ... affirmative charges, and, as we have seen, were properly ... Refused ... charge 3 is embraced in given charge 2. Besides, this charge ... is improper. Suttles v. State, 15 Ala.App. 582, 74 ... So. 400; Butler v. State, 16 Ala.App. 234, 77 So ... 72. Refused charge 4 is condemned in Alonzo Jones v ... State, 20 Ala.App. 660, 104 So. 771. Refused charge 5 ... ignores a consideration of the evidence. Moreover this charge ... is covered in given ... ...
-
Pritchett v. State
... ... case was a matter to be determined by the trial court, and ... was entirely within its discretion, and the action of the ... court in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial ... was not revisable. Cooper v. State, 88 Ala. 107, 7 ... So. 47; Suttles v. State, 15 Ala. App. 582, 74 So ... 400; Smith v. State, 165 Ala. 50, 51 So. 610 ... Under ... the statute, supra, as stated in the original opinion, it is ... essential to the right to review the ruling of the trial ... court on a motion for new trial that an exception should be ... ...
-
Emerson v. State, 6 Div. 721.
... ... It cannot be ... given when the evidence affords an inference adverse to him ... In such a case the question must be submitted to the jury for ... decision. Hargrove v. State, 147 Ala. 97, 41 So ... 972, 119 Am.St.Rep. 60, 10 Ann.Cas. 1126; Suttles v ... State, 15 Ala.App. 582, 74 So. 400. We have accorded ... careful study to the argument and authorities submitted by ... able counsel for appellant, but are persuaded that as to the ... facts of this case they are not apposite. From the evidence ... submitted, and the inferences ... ...