Terry v. State, 8 Div. 150

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: ANDERSON, C.J.
• Citation: 203 Ala. 99,82 So. 113
• Decision Date: 10 April 1919
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 150
• Parties: TERRY v. STATE.

82 So. 113

203 Ala. 99

TERRY
v.
STATE.

8 Div. 150

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 10, 1919

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.

ANDERSON, C.J.

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 [82 So. 114.] 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...