White v. State

• Decision Date: 01 February 1921
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 639
• Citation: 18 Ala.App. 50,88 So. 451
• Parties: WHITE v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

88 So. 451

18 Ala.App. 50

WHITE v. STATE.

7 Div. 639

Court of Appeals of Alabama

February 1, 1921

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; E.J. Garrison, Judge.

Jim (alias James) White was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Affirmed.

Lackey Pruet & Glass, of Ashland, for appellant.

J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN P.J.

The defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree, the trial under this indictment resulted in a verdict by the jury of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, and his punishment was fixed at five years' imprisonment in the penitentiary.

Under the statute (Code 1907, § 6264) it is the duty of the appellate courts of this state to consider all questions apparent on the record, or reserved by bills of exceptions and to render such judgments as the law demands.

In the instant case the judgment entry is faulty, not, however, to the extent of constituting error; yet we feel it necessary to again call to the attention of the circuit clerks and to the presiding judges the fact that in all criminal cases where there is conviction the judgment entry should recite in express words that the defendant is adjudged guilty by the court as found by the jury, naming the offense; in other words, there should always be the judgment of the court upon his guilt.

In this case the language employed in the minute entry is barely sufficient to uphold the conviction, but under the authority of the following cases we hold that enough is expressed to show that the judgment was invoked and pronounced upon the guilt of the defendant: Wilkinson v State, 106 Ala. 28, 17 So. 458; Wright v. State, 103 Ala. 95, Gray v. State, 55 Ala. 86; Ex parte Roberson, 123 Ala. 103, 26 So. 645, 82 Am.St.Rep. 107; Ex parte Rodgers, 12 Ala.App. 218, 225, 67 So. 710; Stanfield v. State, 3 Ala.App. 54, 59, 57 So. 402.

On cross-examination of state's witness Ed Denham testified that deceased, Giles, some time prior to the difficulty here in question, but on the same day, had given him (witness) a pistol. The defendant then propounded to him the following question: "How come him giving you that pistol?" The court sustained the state's objection to this question, and defendant excepted. That there was no error in this ruling is so patent no discussion thereof is necessary. A witness cannot testify as to the motive, reason, or intention of his own or of another person.

The next exception was to action of the court in sustaining the state's objection to the question asked this same witness by defendant, "He [deceased] and Alford were partners in the liquor business that day?" This objection was properly sustained, as the matter inquired about was irrelevant and wholly foreign to any of the issues involved in this case, and further the tendency of such inquiry was to unduly prejudice the jury by immaterial matters not involved in this trial. The same applies to the ruling of the court in sustaining the objection to the question, "Do you know whether he [deceased] was drunk after that any more?" The question related to a period of time some days after the difficulty, and was therefore not competent.

There was no error in the ruling of the court upon the testimony of Dr. A.H. Owens, one of the physicians who attended the deceased after he had been injured, and the exception in this connection is without merit.

The principal insistence of error by counsel for appellant, and the only question argued by them in brief, relates to the following occurrence as shown by the record, state's witness Dr. J.M. Barfield being upon the witness stand (on redirect examination of...