Swindle v. State
| Decision Date | 08 June 1937 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 111 |
| Citation | 176 So. 372,27 Ala.App. 549 |
| Parties | SWINDLE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1937
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; H.L. Findley, Special Judge.
Coye Festus Swindle was convicted of first-degree manslaughter and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Swindle v. State (6 Div 177) 176 So. 375.
Bealle & Mize, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and John J. Haynes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment in this case was for murder in the first degree. On the trial the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter in the first degree; thus, rendering unnecessary a consideration of any ruling of the court referable only to murder in the first or second degrees.
At the beginning of the trial and after the jury had been placed in the box, and before the statement of the case to the jury by the solicitor, Mr. Henry Mayfield, special prosecutor in the case, was followed by the wife and the five small children of the deceased into the courtroom, and in an audible voice requested all those seated near the counsel table to make room for them. He thereupon in the presence of the jury seated the wife and her small children at the counsel table, directly in front of the jury, and within the bar of the court. Thereupon counsel for defendant stated to the court: "Your Honor, we object to the family of the deceased being within the bar." The court in reply said: "Those parties not taking part in the case will move from the table." Before proceeding further, the jury was caused to retire. Whereupon counsel for defense moved for a mistrial. Assigning for grounds for the motion that the five young children of the deceased had been brought into the counsel table with the prosecuting attorneys around them, and that the only purpose and result of such display would tend to prejudice the minds of the jury. Thereupon, at the suggestion of the court, the five children took seats just outside of the bar, after the prosecuting attorney had asked occupants of the front seats to move. Whereupon he placed the children in the vacated seats.
This was all done while the jury had retired, but after the children had first been led to the table of the prosecution in the presence of the jury, and after removal from the bar they were placed on the front seat in the courthouse, in plain view of the jury after it returned. The court then overruled the defendant's motion for a mistrial, to which exception was taken.
There can be no doubt that the act of the prosecuting attorney in ostentatiously producing the widow and five small children of the dead man at the table of the prosecuting attorneys inside the bar and in the presence of the jury was an effort on his part to create an atmosphere of sympathy in the trial for the family of the dead man, and a prejudice in the minds of the jury in a way and manner not warranted by the evidence. If the widow and small children had not been in the courtroom, it could not have been proven that the dead man left a widow and five small children; and the act of the prosecuting attorney was an effort to get this evidence before the jury in an illegal way. But, the question here raised seeks to review the action of the trial judge in a matter touching and affecting his discretion, which may not be done unless it be made to appear to this court that there was an abuse of such discretion to the substantial injury of the defendant's cause.
The object and purpose of all trials is to see that the parties litigant receive a fair and an impartial trial before a jury without any outside influence not justified by law. In accomplishing this purpose, the duty rests upon the trial judge, and to him must,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blue v. State
...157 So. 262; 26 Am.Jur. p. 371. Photographs of Place of Homicide. Pictures of the scene of the homicide were admissible. Swindle v. State, 27 Ala.App. 549, 176 So. 372, certiorari denied 234 Ala. 621, 176 So. 375; Wilson State, Ala.App., 11 So.2d 563, certiorari denied 243 Ala. 671, 11 So.2......
-
Foster & Creighton Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co.
...244 Ala. 188, 12 So.2d 751; Smith v. State, 37 Ala.App. 116, 64 So.2d 620, certiorari denied 258 Ala. 647, 64 So.2d 622; Swindle v. State, 27 Ala.App. 549, 176 So. 372, certiorari denied 234 Ala. 621, 176 So. 375. From the record before us, it does not appear that there was any abuse of dis......
-
State v. Henry
...proceedings, in such way and manner as to bring themselves into a consideration by the jury when it comes to make up its verdict.’ The Swindle case, supra, differs from the one at bar the following important respects: 1. In that case the intention to prejudice the jury was inferred, but in ......
-
Pilley v. State, 6 Div. 308.
... ... condition of the scene of the homicide on the day that it ... occurred. They were properly admitted and it was proper to ... permit witnesses to refer to them in illustrating their ... testimony. Blue v. State, 246 Ala ... [25 So.2d 60] ... 73, 19 ... So.2d 11; Swindle v. State, 27 Ala.App. 549, 176 So ... 372, certiorari denied 234 Ala. 621, 176 So. 375; ... Lancaster v. State, 21 Ala.App. 140, 106 So. 609, ... certiorari denied 214 Ala. 76, 106 So. 618; Humber v ... State, 19 Ala.App. 451, 99 So. 68, certiorari denied 210 ... Ala. 559, 99 So. 73 ... ...