Terry v. State
| Decision Date | 10 April 1919 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 150 |
| Citation | 203 Ala. 99,82 So. 113 |
| Parties | TERRY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 22, 1919
Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; C.P. Almon, Judge.
J.T Terry was convicted of an offense, and he appeals. Affirmed.
A.H Carmichael, of Tuscumbia, W.L. Chenault, of Russellville, and Goodwyn & Ross, of Bessemer, for appellant.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., and Horace Wilkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
There was no error in permitting proof of the defendant's confession that he shot the deceased, as a sufficient predicate was laid for same. Moreover, if such was not the case, there could have been no reversible error in this respect. There was no affirmative answer by nod or otherwise as to whether or not he shot Dr. Hughes first. He did nod his head when asked if he shot Dr. Hughes, and as to this fact there was no dispute, as the defendant admitted when on the stand as a witness that he shot him.
There was no error in permitting the state to introduce the clothing worn by the deceased at the time he was shot, as an inspection of same by the jury may have disclosed the nature and character of the wounds and explained or elucidated the position of the parties, the number of shots fired, the distance they were from each other, etc. Kuykendall v. Edmondson, 77 So. 24; Rollings Case, 160 Ala. 82, 49 So. 329. When the clothing was introduced, the witness R.W. Creighton was the only one who had so far testified as to the nature and character of the wounds, and his testimony was not altogether definite and positive as to the location of same. He said, "It has been so long ago that I have almost forgotten," and the clothing had a tendency to at least corroborate, explain, or elucidate his testimony. The Rollings Case, supra, sanctions the admission of the clothing in question, as the opinion says:
"The wearing apparel of deceased, showing the location of the bullets, the character and nature of the wound, the blood stains, etc., were properly admissible under the rules stated above, and it is no reason to exclude them that these matters might be shown by other evidence, or that these objects might prejudice the jurors."
From aught that appears from this record, the clothing introduced may have shown blood stains, bullet holes, etc., tending to assist the jury in considering the pertinent issues in the case. True, the Rollings Case does hold that articles which can shed no light upon the question involved should not be admitted.
The case of A.G.S.R.R. v. Bell, 76 So. 920, was a personal injury case where the plaintiff was run over or against by a train, and the clothing and shoes did not and could not shed any light on any controverted issue. Here, while counsel stated that the injuries and wounds were undisputed, yet this admission did not entirely supply the clothing in question or prevent the inspection of same from being of some benefit to the jury in considering the controvertible issues in the case.
In the Pearson Case, 97 Ala. 219, 12 So. 176, there was nothing to indicate that the shoe worn by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sing
...182 Iowa 908, 166 N.W. 359; State v. Porter, 276 Mo. 387, 207 S.W. 774; Watson v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. 115, 205 S.W. 662; Terry v. State, 203 Ala. 99, 82 So. 113; v. Wolff, 182 Cal. 728, 190 P. 22; Sizemore v. Commonwealth, 189 Ky. 46, 224 S.W. 637; Locklear v. State, 17 Ala. App. 597, 87 So.......
-
Burdett v. Hipp
...... or animosity toward, either the deceased or the accused. Northern Ala. Ry. Co. v. Mansell, Adm'r, 138. Ala. 548, 36 So. 459; Rollings v. State, 160 Ala. 82, 49 So. 329; Husch v. State, 211 Ala. 274, 100. So. 321; Hyche v. State, 217 Ala. 114, 114 So. 906;. Shamberger v. State, 221 Ala. ...v. Bell, 200 Ala. 562, 76 So. 920; and Boyette v. State, 215 Ala. 472, 110 So. 812, have been construed as. not holding to the contrary. Terry v. State, 203. Ala. 99, 82 So. 113; Hyche v. State, supra; Weems v. State,. supra. . . We. think the clothing should have ......
-
Hyche v. State
...v. State, 12 Ala.App. 1, 67 So. 783; Smith v. State, 183 Ala. 10, 62 So. 864; Richardson v. State, 191 Ala. 21, 68 So. 57; Terry v. State, 203 Ala. 99, 82 So. 113; Ex Fuller, 200 Ala. 697, 76 So. 995; Hutchens v. State, 207 Ala. 126, 92 So. 409; Locklear v. State, 17 Ala.App. 597, 87 So. 70......
-
Gholston v. State
...... stand in the way of proving physical facts tending to. establish any material circumstance in the case. Rollings. v. State, 160 Ala. 82, 49 So. 329; Hyche v. State, 217 Ala. 114, 114 So. 906; Id., 22 Ala. App. 176,. 113 So. 644; Terry v. State, 203 Ala. 99, 82 So. 113; Husch v. State, 211 Ala. 274, 100 So. 321;. Boyette v. State, 215 Ala. 472, 100 So. 812;. Crenshaw v. State, 207 Ala. 438, 93 So. 465;. Puckett v. State, 213 Ala. 383, 105 So. 211. . . Defendant. testified fully that he did not kill deceased, that ......