Whitaker v. State

Citation17 So. 456,106 Ala. 30
PartiesWHITAKER v. STATE.
Decision Date09 April 1895
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Appeal from circuit court, Madison county; H. C. Speake, Judge.

John R Whitaker was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and appeals. Reversed.

The appellant was indicted and tried for the killing of Bat Whitaker, and was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced to imprisonment for two years. At the time of the killing there were a number of people at a certain church in Madison county, for the purpose of attending a singing school. The deceased and his brother Jack Whitaker, were playing marbles with some girls, while the defendant, John S. Ikard, and some others were engaged in "a play" of lifting up men, and carrying them around on their hands. After having lifted up several men in this manner, they came to Jack Whitaker, and in his efforts to prevent being lifted and carried around by the defendant Ikard, and others, he kicked the defendant in the eye, making a black place. After Jack Whitaker was released, the deceased, Bat Whitaker, came up to the defendant, and there ensued a quarrel, which resulted in a fight, in which fight the defendant stabbed Bat Whitaker, from the effects of which wound the said Whitaker died in a few minutes. The testimony in behalf of the state and the defendant was in conflict as to who was the aggressor in the fight; and there was also conflict in the testimony as to whether the deceased had his knife open, cutting at the defendant, when the fatal blow was struck by the defendant. There was much testimony introduced, against the objection and exceptions of the defendant, as to what part in the difficulty John S. Ikard took, and as to his preventing Jack Whitaker from striking the defendant while the defendant and the deceased were fighting. At the request of the state, the court gave the following written charge: "If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant did or said anything intended, and calculated to produce the difficulty in which Batt Whitaker was killed, he is not entitled to an acquittal under the doctrine of self-defense." The defendant duly excepted to the giving of this charge by the court, and also excepted to the court's refusal to give the following charge requested by him: "If the evidence in this case convinces the jury that there is a probability of the innocence of the defendant, then your verdict should be, 'Not guilty."'

William Richardson, for appellant.

William C. Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKELL C.J.

In the course of trials by jury, a grave duty resting on the court, not infrequently attended with much difficulty, is to guard against the introduction of irrelevant evidence. Such evidence is but seldom harmless. If admitted, it often necessitates widening the scope of inquiry, directing it to facts and circumstances which, it found, ought not to exert an influence in the determination of the issues; may surprise and oppress the party against whom it is introduced, who cannot be presumed to be prepared to meet other than material, relevant evidence; prolongs trials injuriously; and has the effect or tendency to mislead the jury, diverting their attention from the evidence on which the verdict ought to be based. The test of the relevancy of evidence, it is said by Wharton, is whether it "conduces to the proof of a pertinent hypothesis; a pertinent hypothesis being one, which if sustained, would logically influence the issue." 1 Whart. Ev. § 20.

The cause of quarrel resulting in the affray in which the homicide was committed appears to have originated in that which is termed in the evidence "the play," in which the brother of the deceased was borne about against his will by the defendant, Ikard and others participating, and until the killing the quarrel was continuous. But, without concert or combination, there were different participants in it. While the affray was in progress between the defendant and the deceased, without the knowledge of either, Ikard manifested a purpose to interfere for the assistance of the defendant, and was resisted by the brother of the deceased. These occurrences may be traced to, and sprang from, the source provoking the affray, and are, in point of time, coincident with it. They were not parts of the res gestae. They were mere incidents, happening casually, without the knowledge, design, or expectation of the deceased, or of the defendant. The controlling, central inquiry was-the fact that the homicide was committed by the defendant not being matter of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Stokley v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1950
    ...cases it was held that the refusal of such a charge constituted reversible error. Croft v. State, 95 Ala. 3, 10 So. 517; Whitaker v. State, 106 Ala. 30, 17 So. 456; Morris v. State, 146 Ala. 66, 41 So. 274. However, the more recent decisions of this court and of the Court of Appeals hold th......
  • Morris v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1906
    ...it may be said of the charge that it is misleading. Charge 53 is a copy of charge 6, which was held to be a good charge in Whitaker's Case, 106 Ala. 30, 17 So. 456. The should have been given. In given charges 25, 28, 35, 38, and J, it seems that the defendant had the benefit of the proposi......
  • Barbour v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1954
    ...their sympathy for, or animosity toward either the deceased or the accused. Rollings v. State, 160 Ala. 82, 49 So. 329; Whitaker v. State, 106 Ala. 30, 17 So. 456; Curtis v. State, 118 Ala. 125, 24 So. 111; McCormack v. State, 102 Ala. 156, 161, 15 So. 438; Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 31......
  • Maples v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 26, 1999
    ...their sympathy for, or animosity toward either the deceased or the accused. Rollings v. State, 160 Ala. 82, 49 So. 329; Whitaker v. State, 106 Ala. 30, 17 So. 456; Curtis v. State, 118 Ala. 125, 24 So. 111; McCormack v. State, 102 Ala. 156, 161, 15 So. 438; Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 31......
  • 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