White v. State

• Decision Date: 22 May 1902
• Citation: 32 So. 139,133 Ala. 122
• Parties: WHITE v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

32 So. 139

133 Ala. 122

WHITE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 22, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; A. H. Alston, Judge.

Sam White was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant Sam White was jointly indicted with one Florence Kimbrough for the murder of Mary Williams, was tried separately, and was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to the penitentiary for life.

When the case was called for trial, the defendant moved the court to quash the venire served upon him, upon the ground that one C. Knight, whose name was on the list of jurors served on the defendant for his trial in this case, was excused by the court from serving on the jury; that he was so excused without the knowledge or consent of the defendant; that the ground for excusing him was that he had served as a juror in a justice of the peace court within 12 months, but that said Knight came to court and offered to serve as a juror during the week defendant was tried, but was excused by the court without legal cause or excuse therefor; and that the defendant was deprived of the right to pass upon said Knight as a juror on his trial. The facts as stated in the motion were admitted to be true. The court overruled the objection and the defendant duly excepted. The facts of the case necessary to an understanding of the decision on the present appeal are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: (6) "The jury must find from the circumstances relied on in this case, in order to convict, that there is no other possible or reasonable conclusion to be reached, but that of defendant's guilt, and if you do not so find, then the state has failed to make out a case, and it is your duty to acquit the defendant." (11) "The court charges you gentlemen, that no matter how strong the circumstances may be in this case, if they can be reconciled with the theory, that some other person did the killing charged against the defendant, then defendant's guilt is not established by that full measure of proof required by law, and the jury should acquit him." (18) "The uncontroverted testimony in this case is that Mary Williams asked the defendant to go with her from the place where White overtook the deceased, to the house where the body of deceased was found."

Tate &amp Walker, for appellant.

Chas G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and John F. Proctor, for the State.

HARALSON J.

There was no error in overruling the defendant's motion to quash the venire, based on the ground that the court had without defendant's consent, excused a juror whose name was on the list served on him for his trial. It is shown that no such ground existed.

What the production of the bundle of clothing found at the house of Kimbrough, a codefendant not here on trial, had to do with the case is not made to appear. The court, at the request of the solicitor, had the bundle produced, and it was laid where the jury could see it, but it does not appear that the bundle was opened or its contents exhibited to the jury. No possible injury could have resulted to the defendant from what was done. Code, § 4333. It may be presumed, the bundle was produced for its contents to be used, if in the progress of the trial, it was shown to be proper to do so, which was not done.

Dr Boyd was examined as a witness for the state, and testified, that he had been practicing medicine for about two years, and was a county physician; that he had considerable experience in examining blood spots and had examined the defendant's leggings with a low-power lens; that he went with the coroner's jury on the morning the dead woman was found, and was asked by the solicitor what he found on the defendant's leggings. He answered, that he found some stains on them that looked like blood; that he made no microscopical examination of the stains, and could not swear positively that it was blood--could only swear that these stains looked like blood. The leggings were introduced in evidence by the defendant. The defendant when said question was propounded to the witness. objected to it because it was not shown that the witness had the knowledge to qualify him to testify as an expert; that it was not shown that he had made...