Tortomasi v. State
Decision Date | 04 April 1939 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 137. |
Citation | 189 So. 901,28 Ala.App. 499 |
Parties | TORTOMASI v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied May 2, 1939.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. Russell McElroy Judge.
Charlie Tortomasi was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Tortomasi v. State (6 Div. 520) 189 So. 905.
Beddow Ray & Jones, of Birmingham, for appellant.
A. A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Wm. H. Loeb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The undisputed evidence in this case tended to show that this appellant, defendant below, killed the deceased named in the indictment, by shooting him with a pistol. Further, that the killing occurred about 2 o'clock on the night of September 1, 1936, at a filling station in the City of Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama.
The State contended, and offered evidence tending to sustain this contention, that the killing was perpetrated without legal excuse or justification; and in this connection insisted that it affirmatively appeared from the evidence that the killing of Nasser by appellant was committed in an unlawful and revengeful manner. That, the defendant sought out, and for several days hunted the deceased for the purpose of taking his life, and when he found Nasser he shot him and that at that time the defendant was not in peril.
On the trial the defendant pleaded justification under the right of self defense, and contended he went into the filling station, at the time stated, where the deceased was shot, for the purpose of arresting him, and that he had a lawful right to arrest the deceased, and that before he was able to arrest deceased that deceased committed the overt act of trying to get his pistol out of his car, making it necessary for defendant to shoot him in order to protect his own life.
It is clearly deducible from all the evidence in this case that the killing aforesaid grew out of the fact that two or three nights before the homicide a truck loaded with about 300 cases of beer was hijacked and stolen near the City of Birmingham, and that this appellant and his associates, Milazzo and Simonetti, were of the opinion that the deceased Nasser was the person who had committed the act.
We deem it advisable, in order to make clear the respective insistences of the State, and the appellant, to quote from the "Statement of Facts" contained in the briefs of the Attorney General, and also from the briefs, of counsel, for appellant.
In this connection we first quote the following from briefs of the Attorney General:
From the "Statement of Facts" contained in brief of counsel for appellant we quote the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGuff v. State
...... In. Hubbard v. State, 23 Ala.App. 537, 128 So. 587, 588,. on a trial for kidnapping, the prosecution's witness was. not allowed to testify that 'she attempted to get away at. Ewell, and that she attempted to get out of the car.'. . . The. case of State v. Tortomasi, a case almost identical with the. case at bar, was tried in the lower court on the theory that. a witness (the defendant Tortomasi) may testify as to his. intention, purpose or mental state when material to the. inquiry. The testimony having been admitted in the lower. court, on appeal the ......
-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Jones
......321, 149 So. 863;. Loveman, Joseph & Loeb v. Himrod, 25 Ala.App. 350, 147. So. 164, certiorari denied 226 Ala. 342, 147 So. 163;. Tortomasi v. . . Page 885. . . State,. 28 Ala.App. 499, 189 So. 901, certiorari denied 238 Ala. 253,. 189 So. 905; Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co. ......
-
Milazzo v. State
...cases of beer. "As stated in briefs of counsel 'all points raised in the Milazzo case are similar to those presented to this court in the Tortomasi case,' it follows that a decision this case may be rested upon the judgment and decision in the Tortomasi case. The judgment of conviction from......
-
Capital Motor Lines v. Loring
...... that it was permissible for the witness Sampley, who was. present and observed the situation and condition of the cars. on the highway, to state as a collective fact that the bus. had to stop "being blocked by the cars on the. road," and the court erred in excluding his testimony,. this ......