Tipton v. State
| Citation | 140 Ala. 39,37 So. 231 |
| Parties | TIPTON ET AL. v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1904 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from City Court of Selma; J. W. Mabry, Judge.
John Tipton and another were convicted of murder, and appeal. Affirmed.
The record entries, as shown by the transcript on the present appeal, show that upon the arraignment of the defendants, and after they had pleaded not guilty, it was ordered by the court that 55 jurors be allowed for the trial of the defendants, and that Monday, February 23, 1903, be set for the trial, and that the court then proceeded, in open court to draw from the jury box of Dallas county "the names of sixteen persons; who, with the regular jurors summoned for the week in which this case is set for trial, are necessary to make the number of jurors fifty-five, the number allowed in this order." The record entry then recites that the sheriff should summon the persons so drawn as jurors, and serve them, together with the list of the jurors regularly summoned for the week, and serve said special venire upon the defendants, etc. There was also set out a list of the jurors which were drawn and summoned upon the defendants. It was not shown that the defendants raised any question in the trial court as to the organization or drawing of the petit jury. On the trial of the case, there was evidence introduced tending to show that Fred Robbins was shot and killed by the defendants. Upon the examination of Viney Rhodes, a witness for the state, she was asked by the solicitor for the state if one James Mixon said anything to John Tipton about Fred Robbins when he came into the room; referring to the room where John Tipton was in the afternoon before the killing which killing occurred about 8 o'clock at night. The defendants objected to this question upon the ground that it called for irrelevant evidence. The objection was overruled and the defendants duly excepted. Upon the witness answering that James Mixon did say something to John Tipton, she was asked what he said. The defendants objected to this question upon the same ground, and duly excepted to the court's overruling their objection. The witness answered that James Mixon said that Fred Robbins told him to come down to the room where James Mixon and his wife lived, and he would find John Tipton. The witness was then asked, "What reply did John Tipton make?" and, against the objection and exception of the defendants, the witness replied that John...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. State
... ... should show the organization ... [154 So. 114] ... of the grand jury which found the indictment, since no ... question was raised on the trial as to the legal sufficiency ... of the organization of such jury ... And in ... Tipton et al. v. State, 140 Ala. 39, 42, 37 So. 231, ... 232, it was held that it did not appear that defendants ... raised any question before the trial court as to the ... organization or drawing of the petit jury; that, under ... section 4325 of the Code of 1896, such contention, required ... to ... ...
-
Hatch v. State
... ... which found the indictment. Therefore, under the express ... provisions of section 4325 of the Code of 1896, it is not ... necessary that the transcript should show the organization of ... the grand jury which found the indictment. Tipton's Case, ... 140 Ala. 39, 37 So. 231 ... Charge ... 18, refused to the defendant, is the same as charge 47 which ... was refused in the case of Pickens v. State, 115 ... Ala. 42, 22 So. 551. In the Pickens Case it was held that the ... refusal of the charge was error. The only ... ...
-
Hardley v. State
...because the drawing and organization of the jury is presumed to be correct where its recital is omitted from the record ( Tipton v. State, 140 Ala. 39, 37 So. 231; Hatch's Case, 144 Ala. 50, 40 So. 113;. Harrell State, 160 Ala. 91, 49 So. 805; Gen.Acts 1915, p. 708). In Patton v. State, [1]......
-
Coon v. State
... ... and under ... [65 So. 913.] ... the circumstances shown, as well as to show a motive, and ... was, for these reasons, properly admitted. Gafford v ... State, 122 Ala. 54, 63, 25 So. 10; Pate v ... State, 94 Ala. 14, 10 So. 665; Caddell v ... State, 136 Ala. 9, 34 So. 191; Tipton v. State, ... 140 Ala. 39, 37 So. 231. The relations existing between the ... accused and the person injured prior to and at the time of ... the injury are competent, in conjunction with other ... circumstances, to disclose a motive. Hudson v ... State, 61 Ala. 333; Long v. State, 86 Ala. 37, ... ...