Tyler v. State

• Decision Date: 03 April 1923
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 152.
• Citation: 19 Ala.App. 380,97 So. 573
• Parties: TYLER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

97 So. 573

19 Ala.App. 380

TYLER v. STATE.

6 Div. 152.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

April 3, 1923

Rehearing Denied April 17, 1923.

Affirmed on Mandate July 10, 1923.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 16, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. C. B. Gwin, Judge.

Lon Tyler was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed in conformity to Supreme Court's decision on certiorari. Certiorari granted by Supreme Court in Ex parte State, ex rel. Davis, Atty. Gen., 97 So. 573.

Dr. D.L. Williamson, a witness for the state testified that he saw deceased at the hospital the day he was shot; that the deceased was informed that he was going to die; that "we" asked him to make a statement as to the difficulty with the defendant; that deceased did make a statement, and that witness recalled the sum and substance of it; that the statement was taken down in writing and read over to deceased, who approved it. Being handed a paper, the witness replied that it was the statement written on the occasion. Defendant objected to the reading of the statement the court overruled the objection, and the witness read the statement to the effect that deceased realized he was going to die, and that defendant had shot him "for nothing."

The following charges were refused to defendant:

"1. The court charges this jury, a guest in the house of his relative may legally resist a trespass to the same extent as if his own, and the court charges you that Lon Tyler in this case, this defendant, had the same right to resist any assault made on him in his mother's kitchen, as if he had been in his own house."

"2. The court charges you that, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in this case, Henry Alexander, the deceased, was stationed at the back door of J. M. Tyler's kitchen, sat there prepared and armed with a rifle waiting, or not waiting for Lon Tyler, this defendant, and when this defendant appeared there, Alexander demonstrated to the defendant any hostile acts, and then seized him with violence, then this defendant would have the right and did have the right under circumstances to resist him and use enough force to repel any assault offered, even to taking the life of the deceased."

"4. The court charges the jury that, if you believe from this evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, Henry Alexander sat by the back door of defendant's father's home with a rifle, and when this defendant was free from fault in bringing on the row and where he appeared there in the kitchen and found him there, if Alexander then offered any demonstration against this defendant in a hostile manner, and attempted to use the rifle, there was no duty on this defendant under such circumstances to retreat, and he had a right to stand his grounds and use any force necessary to repel the force offered by Alexander, even to taking life."

"5. If you believe from this evidence beyond all reasonable doubt, this defendant was absolutely free from fault in provoking this difficulty, and that Henry Alexander sat by the back door in the kitchen with a rifle, and when this defendant appeared in the kitchen, Alexander then offered or demonstrated to this defendant any acts of violence, this defendant, under such circumstances, had the right to defend himself, even to taking life."

"7. The burden of disproving the defendant free from fault is not on the defendant. That burden rests on the state and throughout the trial."

"8. The court charges the jury that if you believe from the evidence and find from the evidence witness Mrs. Silvia swore falsely to any material fact or facts in this case, then you may disregard her testimony in this case."

"9. The court charges the jury that the burden is on the state to establish to you, beyond all reasonable doubt, that there was deliberation and premeditation in the mind and acts of the defendant before, or at the time Alexander was shot, and unless these two elements have been so proven, then you cannot convict him for murder."

Pinkney Scott, of Bessemer, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ben G. Perry, of Bessemer, for the State.

BRICKEN P.J.

This is the third appeal in this case; the first being from an order of the judge of the circuit court denying defendant bail, and resulting in an affirmance here. Ex parte Tyler, 17 Ala. App. 698, 89 So. 926. The second appeal was from a judgment of conviction for murder in the first degree resulting in a reversal by the Supreme Court. Tyler v. State, 207 Ala. 129, 92 So. 478.

The evidence offered by the state tended to show that the defendant, on December 12, 1920, while under the influence of liquor, went to the home of J. M. Tyler, defendant's father, where the deceased was a guest visiting the widowed sister of the defendant, Mrs. Silvia; that defendant had protested against deceased's attention to Mrs. Silvia; that when defendant arrived at the home of his father the deceased was playing with two of Mrs. Silvia's children in the kitchen, and that Mrs. Silvia and the baby were in the adjoining room; that defendant, without the slightest provocation or semblance of justification, shot the deceased, inflicting upon his person wounds that caused his death.

The defendant offered some evidence tending to show that he was on his way to his brother's, carrying his brother some medicine; that he stopped by his father's home, and entered the home by the kitchen door; that deceased seized and attacked him; and, in a scuffle for defendant's pistol, the weapon was discharged, inflicting the wounds that caused the death of the deceased.

The defendant's motion to quash the venire and his objecting to being put to trial because two of the veniremen drawn for the defendant's trial had served as jurors on the former trial of the defendant was without merit, and was properly overruled. Stover v. State, 204 Ala. 311, 85 So. 393; Morris v. State, 18 Ala. App. 135, 90 So. 57.

The veniremen who had served on the jury on the previous trial were subject to challenge for cause and by exercising the right of challenge for cause, if they were objectionable to defendant, these veniremen would have been stricken from the list, without curtailing the defendant's strikes or peremptory challenges. Wickard v. State, 109 Ala. 45, 19 So. 491; Stover v. State, supra.

The question addressed to Mary Alexander, "Who were your physicians, who treated him?" and that addressed to Dr. Wilkinson, "How long have you known him (deceased)?" were preliminary in character, and the defendant's objection was properly overruled.

There was evidence tending to show that the motive prompting the homicide was to put an end to the attention the deceased was showing Mrs. Silvia, and her testimony that her husband was dead, that she was living at her father's, that she was the mother of the children present in the house at the time of the homicide, and the ages of the children, was not without relevancy as shedding light on the motive of the defendant and...