Thompson v. State

Decision Date13 February 1902
Citation31 So. 725,131 Ala. 18
PartiesTHOMPSON v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Madison county; O. Kyle, Judge.

Dan Thompson was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree and he appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant was tried under an indictment which charged that "before the finding of this indictment, Dan Thompson unlawfully and intentionally, but without malice, killed James Carter, by running with a horse against a mule on which said Carter was riding, thereby knocking said Carter from his said mule upon the ground, killing him as aforesaid," was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree, and sentenced to one year's hard labor for the county. On the trial of the cause the evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant was racing his horse along the public road in Madison county, and that while so racing he ran against a mule that was ridden by the deceased, and thereby knocked the mule down, and said mule fell on the deceased; the injury resulting in the death of the deceased. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that he was not racing along the public road; that his horse took fright while he was riding and was running away with him; and that, as it was dark, he did not see said Carter, who was riding the mule, before his horse ran into him. At the request of the state the court gave to the jury the following written charges: "(1) I charge you, gentlemen, that every man is presumed to intend the results reasonably resulting from his own acts. (2) I charge you, gentlemen, that negligence may be so gross as to imply criminal intent, and thus raise the degree of manslaughter to the first degree." The defendant separately excepted to the giving of each of these charges and also separately excepted to the court's refusal to give the following charges requested by him: "(2) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that a reasonable doubt is just such a doubt for which a reason can be assigned." "(4) Gentlemen of the jury, I charge you that, if you believe the evidence, you will find the defendant not guilty. (5) And I further charge you that, if there is any one material fact inconsistent with the guilt of the defendant he must be acquitted." "(8) I further charge you that if you, or either of you, have a reasonable doubt as to the proof in this case of any material allegation of the indictment, you must acquit the defendant." "(14) I further charge...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Morris v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1906
    ... ... place it assumes that malice on the part of John Morris, Jr., ... was not indulged in by the defendant. It is misleading, as ... the defendant may have been convicted of manslaughter (and he ... was), an offense not involving malice. Littleton's Case, ... 128 Ala. 31, 29 So. 390; Thompson's Case, 131 Ala. 18, 31 ... So. 725; Jarvis' Case, 138 Ala. 17, 34 So. 1025 ... Charge ... 42 is subject to the criticism made with respect of charge ... 41, that it is misleading. But the theory of the defendant, ... as shown by refused charge MM is, that there cannot be aiders ... ...
  • Parham v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1906
    ... ... duplicate. The court was under no duty to give it. 1 ... Mayfield's Dig. p. 174 (20) ... Charge ... 34 was properly refused on the authority of Stoball's ... Case, 116 Ala. 454, 23 So. 162; Littleton's Case, 128 ... Ala. 31, 29 So. 390; Thompson's Case, 131 Ala. 18, 31 So ... Charges ... 35 and 36 were substantially given in charges 17, and 18, and ... the court was under no duty to give the refused charges ... Refused ... charge 40 is a duplicate of given charges 11, and 22 ... We have ... found no ... ...
  • Foster v. State, 8 Div. 243
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 1953
    ...the lesser degrees of unlawful homicide which are included in the indictment. Burkett v. State, 154 Ala. 19, 45 So. 682; Thompson v. State, 131 Ala. 18, 31 So. 725. It is likely faulty in other aspects. Davis v. State, 8 Ala.App. 147, 62 So. 1027. Instruction number 19 was approved in Gilbe......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1905
    ... ... convicted of manslaughter if the jury had concluded ... [39 So. 335.] ... that the evidence warranted a conviction for that offense ... Hence the court was correct in refusing charge numbered 16 ... Stoball's Case, 116 Ala. 454, 23 So. 162; Thompson's ... Case, 131 Ala. 18, 31 So. 725; Littleton's Case, 128 Ala ... 31, 29 So. 390 ... One of ... the indispensable elements of self-defense is freedom from ... fault, and the law admits of no qualification of the ... requirement. Charges containing the expression ... "reasonably ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT