Wilkinson v. State

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtHARALSON, J.
Citation106 Ala. 23,17 So. 458
Decision Date11 April 1895
PartiesWILKINSON ET AL. v. STATE.

17 So. 458

106 Ala. 23

WILKINSON ET AL.
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 11, 1895


Appeal from city court of Mobile; O. J. Semmes, Judge.

James Wilkinson and another were convicted of murder, and appeal. Affirmed.

The appellants, James Wilkinson and Daniel Wilkinson, were indicted and tried for the murder of Edward Chastang, and were convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to the penitentiary for life. The rulings of the court upon the motion to quash the venire are sufficiently shown in the opinion. The evidence for the state, as shown by the bill of exceptions, tended to show that the deceased, Edward Chastang, and his brother, Frank Chastang, met the defendants in a public road in Mobile county, and that Edward Chastang was assaulted by Daniel Wilkinson, who pulled him from his horse to the ground, and while lying on the ground under said Daniel Wilkinson, James Wilkinson, the son of Daniel Wilkinson, shot Edward Chastang with a pistol, from the effects of which wound he died in a few hours. There was evidence tending to show that Edward Chastang was armed with a pistol, and other evidence tending to show that he was not armed at the time of the assault upon him by Daniel Wilkinson. The evidence for the state further tended to show that both the defendants had made threats against the deceased. The evidence for the defendants tended to show that when the Chastangs and Wilkinsons met in the road, Edward Chastang, the deceased, cursed Daniel Wilkinson, and assaulted him with a knife, cutting him in the back; that thereupon, Daniel Wilkinson called to his son, James Wilkinson, for aid, saying to him, that he was being cut to death by Edward Chastang; that thereupon, Frank Chastang placed himself between James Wilkinson and the contestant, cursing James Wilkinson and fired at him; that James Wilkinson immediately returned the fire, the ball missing Frank Chastang, but struck Edward Chastang and killed him. The other facts of the case are sufficiently shown in the opinion. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the defendants requested the court to give, among other charges, the following written instruction, and duly excepted to the court's refusal to give the same: "Dan Wilkinson cannot be rightfully convicted on proof of killing of Ed Chastang by Jim Wilkinson only, unless Dan Wilkinson co-operated in or expressly or impliedly requested or induced or aided Jim Wilkinson to assail or kill Edward Chastang unlawfully, and if the jury believe from the evidence that Dan Wilkinson did not kill Edward Chastang, but that James Wilkinson did kill him, then the jury could not rightfully convict Dan Wilkinson of murder or manslaughter in any degree, unless Dan Wilkinson expressly or impliedly induced or requested or aided James Wilkinson to assail or kill said Chastang unlawfully; and if the jury also believe from the evidence, that Dan Wilkinson was engaged in a fight, unarmed, with Edward Chastang, and was being cut in the back by said Chastang, and during this time called to his son, James Wilkinson, 'Come here, Jim, he is cutting me to death,' this alone would not justify the jury in finding that the defendant, Dan Wilkinson, intended that James Wilkinson should assail or kill said Edward Chastang unlawfully. Such language is susceptible of more than one construction, and according to the circumstances under which it was used, and might be either innocent or wrongful; and the burden is on the state, so far as Dan Wilkinson is concerned, to show that Dan Wilkinson, expressly or impliedly, requested or induced Jim Wilkinson to assail or kill Edward Chastang unlawfully, or co-operated with him therein before Dan Wilkinson can rightfully be found guilty on proof of killing by James Wilkinson."

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • Burns v. State, 6 Div. 965.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 6, 1932
    ...may exercise sound judicial discretion, in refusing to reopen or receive additional evidence on any phase of the case. Wilkinson v. State, 106 Ala. 23, 29, 17 So. 458; Barlew, alias, v. State, 5 Ala. App. 290, 296, 57 So. 601, and authorities there cited. When, however, the court permits th......
  • Robinson v. State, 609
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 10, 1910
    ...they must draw from certain facts. This was error, for it was the duty of the jury to draw their own inferences. (Wilkerson v. State, 106 Ala. 23; Esterling v. State, 30 Ala. 46; People v. Camillo, 54 Cal. 63; Allison v. State, 42 Ind. 354; Comm. v. Clifford, 145 Mass. 97.) The presumption ......
  • Scott v. State, 8 Div. 540.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 12, 1934
    ...is sufficient to adjudge defendant's guilt. Carmichael v. State, 213 Ala. 264, 104 So. 638; Cherry v. State, supra; Wilkinson v. State, 106 Ala. 23, 17 So. 458; Roberson v. State, 123 Ala. 55, 26 So. 645; 69 A. L. R. 793, 794, note. Affirmed. ANDERSON, C.J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur. ...
  • Billingsley v. State, 7 Div. 710
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 22, 1980
    ...of the omission of words which would merely have made the judgment "fuller and more complete" had they been included. Wilkinson v. State, 106 Ala. 23, 28, 17 So. 458 (1894). The omission in the minute entry of the judgment of a formal adjudication of the defendant's guilt upon the verdict r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • Burns v. State, 6 Div. 965.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 6, 1932
    ...may exercise sound judicial discretion, in refusing to reopen or receive additional evidence on any phase of the case. Wilkinson v. State, 106 Ala. 23, 29, 17 So. 458; Barlew, alias, v. State, 5 Ala. App. 290, 296, 57 So. 601, and authorities there cited. When, however, the court permits th......
  • Robinson v. State, 609
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 10, 1910
    ...they must draw from certain facts. This was error, for it was the duty of the jury to draw their own inferences. (Wilkerson v. State, 106 Ala. 23; Esterling v. State, 30 Ala. 46; People v. Camillo, 54 Cal. 63; Allison v. State, 42 Ind. 354; Comm. v. Clifford, 145 Mass. 97.) The presumption ......
  • Scott v. State, 8 Div. 540.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 12, 1934
    ...is sufficient to adjudge defendant's guilt. Carmichael v. State, 213 Ala. 264, 104 So. 638; Cherry v. State, supra; Wilkinson v. State, 106 Ala. 23, 17 So. 458; Roberson v. State, 123 Ala. 55, 26 So. 645; 69 A. L. R. 793, 794, note. Affirmed. ANDERSON, C.J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur. ...
  • Billingsley v. State, 7 Div. 710
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 22, 1980
    ...of the omission of words which would merely have made the judgment "fuller and more complete" had they been included. Wilkinson v. State, 106 Ala. 23, 28, 17 So. 458 (1894). The omission in the minute entry of the judgment of a formal adjudication of the defendant's guilt upon the verdict r......
  • 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