Walker v. State

• Citation: 35 So. 1011,139 Ala. 56
• Parties: WALKER v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 21 January 1904
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

35 So. 1011

139 Ala. 56

WALKER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 21, 1904

Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; S. H. Spratt, Judge.

Henry Walker was convicted of the murder of one Maggie Dickinson and he appeals. Reversed.

McClellan C.J., and Dowdell, J., dissenting.

On the trial of the case it was shown that Mrs. Dickinson, the deceased, who was the wife of Joseph Dickinson, was found at her house, lying across a bed, in an unconscious condition that her clothes and the bed were very bloody, and that her skull was fractured from several wounds with a blunt instrument of some sort; and that from the effects of these wounds she died. It was also shown that at the same time her husband was in an unconscious condition, having been wounded by a severe blow.

Upon the introduction of several witnesses for the state, they testified that they went to the Dickinson house the morning after Mrs. Dickinson was injured, and that Mrs. Dickinson said that she could not get well and was bound to die, and gave directions as to the care and disposition of her children. The state then offered to prove by a certain witness declarations which were made by the deceased, as dying declarations, and the witness testified that Mrs Dickinson said that a negro inflicted the wounds; that the negro who inflicted the said wounds was "one who used to work for Capt. B. M. Long, was a tall, black negro, and wore dark clothes, dark shirt, gray hat, and blue overalls, and that she had seen the same negro the day before, with a gun oiling it; that she did not know the negro's name." The defendant objected to the introduction of these statements of the deceased as dying declarations, upon the ground that it was not sufficiently shown that the deceased was properly impressed that she was going to die, and upon the further ground that she was not competent to make the statements on account of the wounds and opiates which had been administered to her. Dr. Miller, the physician who was in attendance upon the deceased on the morning the statements were made, testified that, while she was under the influence of morphine, it did not make her flighty, but made her sleep some. The court overruled each of these objections, and to each of these rulings the defendant separately excepted.

Mrs. Somerville, a witness for the state, testified that the negro the deceased had seen in front of her gate the evening before she was killed was the defendant. The defendant objected to this testimony, and moved to exclude it, on the ground that it was irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. Against the objection and exception of the defendant, the state also proved that the defendant answered the description as given by the deceased in her dying declarations, and that he used to work for Capt. B. M. Long.

The defendant made a showing as to what one of his absent witnesses would testify, which was admitted by the state subject to legal objections. In this statement it was alleged that the absent witness would testify, if present, that, some time prior to the time of the killing of Mrs. Dickinson, her husband, Mr. Dickinson, attempted to arrest a negro and had a difficulty with him; that the witness saw the said negro, in the town where the deceased was killed, the night before the crime was committed, but had not seen him since. The state objected to the introduction of this showing in evidence upon the ground that it was irrelevant and immaterial and incompetent. The court sustained the objection, and the defendant duly excepted.

The evidence for the defendant tended to show that he did not inflict the wounds upon Mrs. Dickinson from which she died, he testifying as a witness in his own behalf that he did not do so, and further testifying that the night the wounds were inflicted he went to the house of Maggie McClure, where he lived, about 9 o'clock, and remained there all through the night. Maggie McClure, a witness for the defendant, testified that the defendant came to her house, where he lived, on the night that Mrs. Dickinson was injured, and remained there throughout the night. Upon her cross-examination she denied that she had told the sheriff, and other persons with him, that the defendant came to her house between midnight and day. The sheriff and the other persons who were with him testified that Mrs. McClure told them that the defendant came to her house, the night Mrs. Dickinson was injured, between midnight and day.

There was also evidence introduced that, when the defendant was arrested, the person arresting him was afraid to carry him through the town of Cordova, where the killing occurred, and directed him to walk around the town and meet him at a certain place on the road to Jasper, where he was to be carried and put in jail, and that the defendant did as directed and met the officer at the point designated.

Upon the examination of George O'Rear as a witness for the state he testified that he knew the defendant, and arrested him just after Mrs. Dickinson was found with the wounds inflicted upon her; that he found the defendant at his house, and found at the foot of his bed a box with blood on the lid. The defendant objected to the statement as to this witness having found the box with blood on the lid, and moved to exclude it. The court overruled the objection and motion, and the defendant duly excepted.

The facts relating to the rulings of the court upon the evidence are sufficiently shown in the opinion.

During his argument to the jury, Mr. Bankhead, attorney for the state, made the following statements: "Gentlemen of the jury, I leave it to you to say whether Maggie McClure told the truth when she told the sheriff and others that defendant did not come home until after midnight, or whether she has told it on the trial. Is it not more reasonable to believe that she was telling the truth then, rather than when she testified on the stand?" The defendant objected to this portion of the argument of the attorney for the state, and moved to exclude it. The court overruled the objection and motion, and the defendant duly excepted.

The court, at the request of the state, gave to the jury the following written charge: "The fact that, when charged with the commission of a crime, the defendant refuses to flee, but surrenders himself to the proper authorities cannot be considered as showing his innocence of the offense charged." The defendant duly excepted to the court's giving this charge, and also separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of the following charges requested by him: "(1) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that a reasonable doubt, within the meaning of the law, is such as would cause a reasonable, prudent, and considerate man, in the graver and more important affairs of life, to pause and hesitate before acting upon the truth of the matter charged, and if you have such doubt in this case you must acquit the defendant. (2) I further charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that upon the trial of a criminal case, if a reasonable doubt of any facts necessary to convict the accused is raised in the minds of the jury by the evidence itself, or by the argument of counsel, based upon any hypothesis reasonably consistent with the evidence, that doubt is decisive in favor of the prisoner, and he should be acquitted. (3) Gentlemen of the jury, I charge you that the law deems it better that the guilty go unpunished than that the innocent should suffer. (4) I charge you,...