Williams v. State, 2 Div. 169.
| Decision Date | 17 April 1941 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 169. |
| Citation | 241 Ala. 348,2 So.2d 423 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 5, 1941.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Benj. F. Elmore Judge.
The indictment charges that "Harrison Williams, alias Bull Williams, unlawfully and with malice aforethought killed Torbert Walton, alias Tolbert Waller, by shooting him with a gun or pistol", etc.
The evidence tended to show that defendant killed "Tolbert Walton".
The verdict of the jury was as follows: "We the jury find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in the indictment and fix his punishment at death in the electric chair."
E F. Hildreth, of Eutaw, for appellant.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Noble J. Russell, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The appeal is from a conviction and judgment of defendant for murder in the first degree.
The evidence for the state tended to show an unprovoked homicide and that for the defendant tended to show that the defendant acted in self-defense. A jury question was thus presented. McMillan v. Aiken, 205 Ala. 35, 40, 88 So. 135.
In Ex parte Grimmett, 228 Ala. 1, 152 So. 263, it is said: "The general rule, to which there are some exceptions, is that, on the trial of the issue in civil cases, the parties enter upon the trial, unaided by any presumptions, with the burden on the party asserting the affirmative of the issue, but in criminal prosecutions, where the plea of not guilty is interposed, the defendant goes to trial attended by the presumption of innocence, which, under the uniform holdings of this court, is a matter of evidence which attends him through the trial."
See, also, Inge v. State, 235 Ala. 280, 178 So. 454.
The record is in the required form and presents nothing for review. Code, § 3249, Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 380; Scott v. State, 228 Ala. 509, 154 So. 113.
The verdict was sufficient and duly fixed the penalty at death in the electric chair. Gast v. State, 232 Ala. 307, 167 So. 554; Hull v. State, 232 Ala. 281, 167 So. 553.
It has long been the accepted rule in this jurisdiction that the court had the right to reject for cause ex mero motu the juror who on his qualification stated that he would not convict on circumstantial evidence. Code, §§ 8612, 8613, Code 1940, Tit. 30, §§ 57, 4; Coker v. State, 144 Ala. 28, 40 So. 516; Griffin v. State, 90 Ala. 596, 8 So. 670; Garrett v. State, 76 Ala. 18, 20; State v. Marshall, 8 Ala. 302.
The question of variance between the allegations and the proof is ruled against the appellant over his insistence that error intervened. See Robert Jones v. State, Ala.Sup., 2 So.2d 422; McCoy v. State, 232 Ala. 104, 166 So. 769.
We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McWhorter v. State
...motu" excuse a juror who had stated during his qualification that he would not convict on circumstantial evidence. Williams v. State, 241 Ala. 348, 349-50, 2 So.2d 423 (1941). See also Coker v. State, 144 Ala. 28, 31, 40 So. 516 (1906) (a trial court properly excused a juror who indicated t......
-
McWhorter v. Dunn
...motu" excuse a juror who had stated during his qualification that he would not convict on circumstantial evidence. Williams v. State, 241 Ala. 348, 349-50, 2 So.2d 423 (1941). See also Coker v. State, 144 Ala. 28, 31, 40 So. 516 (1906) (atrial court properly excused a juror who indicated th......
-
Crawford v. State
...proved by the oath of the person or by other evidence." (Emphasis supplied) The Alabama Supreme Court in the case of Williams v. State, 241 Ala. 348, 2 So.2d 423 (1941), held that the trial court has the right to reject for cause ex mero motu under Title 30, Section 57, supra, any prospecti......
-
Dobbins v. State
...As a result of the conflict in the evidence a jury question was presented. Sanders v. State, 243 Ala. 691, 11 So.2d 740; Williams v. State, 241 Ala. 348, 2 So.2d 423; Kennedy v. State, 240 Ala. 89, 196 So. The trial court did not err in overruling the grounds of the motion for new trial to ......