Timothy v. State
| Citation | 30 So. 339,130 Ala. 68 |
| Parties | TIMOTHY v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 16 May 1901 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge.
Charley Timothy was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Reversed.
Chas G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Timothy the appellant, was indicted, tried, and convicted of murder. The evidence for the state went to show that defendant and Daisy Hunter were in a room together, no one else being present, and that he shot her. He testified that the girl accidentally shot herself while handling his pistol, the ball entering between the right eye and the nose, and passing with a slightly upward range, through her head. There were no indications of powder burns or stains or particles on the face of the deceased. As tending to show that such indications would have existed had the pistol been in the hands of deceased when the shot was fired, the state offered and, against defendant's objection, was allowed to read from a work on medical jurisprudence, which was shown to be "good authority on the subjects of which it treats," an account of certain experiments made by two third persons with guns at various distances to determine how far from the target the weapon would have to be to leave no powder marks upon it, and the conclusion of the author from such experiments that "marks and burns from weapons ordinarily used will scarcely appear when the distance has exceeded ten or twelve feet." It is competent, of course, to put in evidence passages from standard medical works pertinent to wounds and personal physical conditions under inquiry; but we are of opinion that the matter here adduced is not of that character. It does not pertain to the science of medicine or surgery. Men of those professions are no more competent to make such experiments and draw conclusions therefrom than other men, and their opinions in the premises stand upon the same evidential plane as the opinions of laymen, and to be received in the same way and under the same circumstances. Such opinions are never admissible unless the persons giving them are shown to be experts, and then by the word of mouth of such experts under oath. It does not appear that the author of this book was an expert on powder marks, nor that Laclase, of Antwerp, nor Dr. Balch, of Albany, who made the experiments detailed in the book, were experts. And, conceding them to have been experts, they...
To continue reading
Request your trial