Webb v. State

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtSHARPE, J.
Citation135 Ala. 36,33 So. 487
Decision Date21 January 1903
PartiesWEBB v. STATE.

33 So. 487

135 Ala. 36

WEBB
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 21, 1903


Appeal from criminal court, Jefferson county; D. A. Greene, Judge.

Jim Webb was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

Upon the call of the case the state announced "Ready," but the defendant asked for a continuance of the cause upon the following grounds: "First, the absence of two material witnesses, for whom subp nas had been issued in his behalf; second, that the crime for which the defendant was indicted had been committed a little more than a month previous, and defendant should not be put upon trial this early; and upon the further ground that defendant's counsel had not had the opportunity to have a full and complete consultation in private with his client." Upon the hearing of this motion the court ascertained that the two witnesses whose absence was made a ground for asking for a continuance had been subp naed, and that the subp na had been returned "Not found" by the sheriff of Jefferson county; and that neither the defendant nor his counsel could give any information as to their whereabouts, or as to whether they were within the jurisdiction of the court; and that said two parties so subp naed were not eyewitnesses to the alleged killing, and that every eyewitness acquainted with the facts of the killing had been summoned, and was then present. As to the second ground the court ascertained that 30 days had elapsed from the time of the killing to the time of the trial; that the defendant had employed counsel immediately after his arrest; that such counsel was present at the preliminary trial of the defendant, and conferred with him privately from time to time while he was in jail, etc. The court overruled the motion for a continuance, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The bill of exceptions contains the following recital as to the argument of the solicitor: "The solicitor, in his argument to the jury, stated that, as a representative of the state, he had no interest in the conviction of any man, except as an officer of the law, and would not permit the conviction of any innocent man if he knew it; that he got his salary whether or not there was a single conviction; that his salary was paid just as the jury's per diem was paid, whether all the defendants were acquitted or convicted; that he had no interest in any case, except to see the law enforced. The defendant's counsel objected to this argument of the solicitor. The court overruled the objection, and defendant excepted."

The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: "(1) Premeditation means the prior determination on the part of the defendant to take the life of Walton; and, if the jury are not satisfied from all the evidence in the case, beyond all reasonable doubt, and have an abiding conviction to a moral certainty, that defendant had a prior determination to take the life of Walton, before he fired the shot, the jury cannot convict him of murder in the first degree. (2) Premeditation means to think on or revolve in the mind...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Burns v. State, 6 Div. 965.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 6, 1932
    ...109, 53 So. 109; Jarvis v. State, 220 Ala. 501, 126 So. 127, and authorities; Richardson v. State, 191 Ala. 21, 68 So. 57; Webb v. State, 135 Ala. 36, 33 So. 487; Bryant v. State, 185 Ala. 8, 64 So. 333; Mosley v. State, 22 Ala. App. 95, 112 So. 811; Creel v. State, 23 Ala. App. 241, 124 So......
  • Lovett v. State, 8 Div. 317
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 28, 1986
    ...the accused and the deceased six hours before the accused killed the deceased did not form any part of the res gestae); Webb v. State, 135 Ala. 36, 41, 33 So. 487, 489 (1903) ("The inquiry extended to the whole night, ... and therefore cannot be considered as relating merely to the res gest......
  • Barlew v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • January 9, 1912
    ...that the evidence could be corroborative of, and the court was not in error in sustaining objections to the questions. Webb v. State, 135 Ala. 36, 33 So. 487. There was nothing prejudicial to defendant in not being allowed to show the mere fact that defendant was or was not at the house whe......
  • Ex parte Meadows
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 7, 1992
    ...lands when the defendant took possession of them, and not upon the value of the lands as enhanced by the improvements." 135 Ala. at 545, 33 So. at 487 (citing Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Henshaw, 89 Ala. 448, 7 So. 760 (1890)). We adhere to this principle, and we hold that the trial court er......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Burns v. State, 6 Div. 965.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 6, 1932
    ...109, 53 So. 109; Jarvis v. State, 220 Ala. 501, 126 So. 127, and authorities; Richardson v. State, 191 Ala. 21, 68 So. 57; Webb v. State, 135 Ala. 36, 33 So. 487; Bryant v. State, 185 Ala. 8, 64 So. 333; Mosley v. State, 22 Ala. App. 95, 112 So. 811; Creel v. State, 23 Ala. App. 241, 124 So......
  • Lovett v. State, 8 Div. 317
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 28, 1986
    ...the accused and the deceased six hours before the accused killed the deceased did not form any part of the res gestae); Webb v. State, 135 Ala. 36, 41, 33 So. 487, 489 (1903) ("The inquiry extended to the whole night, ... and therefore cannot be considered as relating merely to the res......
  • Barlew v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • January 9, 1912
    ...that the evidence could be corroborative of, and the court was not in error in sustaining objections to the questions. Webb v. State, 135 Ala. 36, 33 So. 487. There was nothing prejudicial to defendant in not being allowed to show the mere fact that defendant was or was not at the house whe......
  • Ex parte Meadows
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 7, 1992
    ...when the defendant took possession of them, and not upon the value of the lands as enhanced by the improvements." 135 Ala. at 545, 33 So. at 487 (citing Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Henshaw, 89 Ala. 448, 7 So. 760 (1890)). We adhere to this principle, and we hold that the trial court err......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT