Webb v. State, 7 Div. 33.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 33. |
| Citation | 26 Ala.App. 241,157 So. 262 |
| Parties | WEBB v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 30, 1934.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cherokee County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.
Perry Webb was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Hugh Reed, of Center, for appellant.
Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
Appellant (defendant) was convicted of the offense of murder in the second degree. His punishment was fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of ten years.
The testimony offered on behalf of the state tended to establish the offense charged, i. e., the one of which appellant was convicted. It tended to show that the defendant approached the deceased, who was working at his job, and provoked the difficulty; that in said difficulty deceased was hitting defendant with a stick when defendant shot deceased several times and killed him. The said testimony further tended to show that after the deceased was shot he retreated and the defendant continued to shoot him in the back.
The defendant's testimony, including that offered on his behalf, tended to make out a case of self-defense, that he was free from fault in bringing on the difficulty, that he was not the aggressor, and that it was necessary for him to shoot the deceased to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.
A jury question was thus presented; the defendant's requested affirmative charges were properly refused; and the motion for a new trial on the ground the verdict was not sustained by the evidence was properly overruled.
There were numerous objections made by the defendant to the introduction of testimony by the state which tended to show previous quarrels or ill feeling between the parties and previous threats or expressions of ill will by the defendant. All of such testimony was clearly admissible. Evidence of previous quarrels and ill feeling is admissible to show malice, or motive for the killing. Smith v State, 197 Ala. 193, 72 So. 316; Smith v. State, 8 Ala. App. 187, 62 So. 575; Clark v. State, 18 Ala. App. 209, 91 So. 328.
Likewise previous threats and expressions of ill will by the defendant are proper subjects of testimony. Goocher v. State, 227 Ala. 337, 149 So. 830; Daugherty v. State, 24 Ala. App. 591, 139 So. 439.
The defendant could not have been prejudiced by being required to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blue v. State
...by the sound of shooting. The evidence was competent as tending to show malice. Smith v. State, 197 Ala. 193, 72 So. 316; Webb v. State, 26 Ala.App. 241, 157 So. 262; Am.Jur. p. 371. Photographs of Place of Homicide. Pictures of the scene of the homicide were admissible. Swindle v. State, 2......
-
Thigpen v. State
...74 Ala. 9. . . .' The conversation in the instant case was clearly admissible as showing malice or motive for the killing. Webb v. State, 26 Ala.App. 241, 157 So. 262; Richardson v. State, 39 Ala.App. 207, 98 So.2d 59, cert. denied, 266 Ala. 699, 98 So.2d Counsel for appellant further cites......
-
Hill v. State
...affidavit. Ingram v. State, 259 Ala. 324, 66 So.2d 843. Jurors may not impeach their verdict by disclosing deliberations. Webb v. State, 26 Ala.App. 241, 157 So. 262. The trial court erred in failing to sustain the state's objection to such procedure. However, denial of the motion to vacate......
-
Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Clarke
...157 So. 259 229 Ala. 382 SOVEREIGN CAMP, W. O. W., v. CLARKE. 6 Div. 597.Supreme Court of AlabamaOctober 11, 1934 ... Rehearing ... ...