Williams v. State
Decision Date | 20 February 1951 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 94 |
Citation | 36 Ala.App. 26,58 So.2d 646 |
Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Hugh A. Locke and Winton G. Wilson, Birmingham, for appellant.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Robt. Straub, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
These charges were refused to defendant:
51 (as far as pertinent). 'I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence in this case,' etc.
On an indictment charging murder in the first degree the accused was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to serve fifteen years in the State penitentiary.
This is the second time this case has been before this court on appeal. See 34 Ala.App. 410, 42 So.2d 594.
According to the testimony of State's witnesses, after dark in the late afternoon, the appellant was on the sidewalk of a street in a residential section of the City of Birmingham. His demeanor was peculiar and he appeared to be intoxicated. The deceased, Mr. Hobgood, and his eight year old niece, while en route to a drug store, observed the appellant as they neared him. Mr. Hobgood inquired of the defendant if he was not there for the purpose of 'molesting' the lady occupants of houses nearby, and told him that he had better go on home. At this time, and while the decedent was holding his niece's hand, the appellant shot Mr. Hobgood with a pistol. There were two discharges from the gun. The second rapidly succeeded the first. Apparently only one load struck the deceased. Death from the inflicted wound ensued forthwith.
The appellant admitted that he shot Mr. Hobgood, but claimed the necessity arose under the doctrine of self defense. In this aspect he testified that the decedent was in the act of attacking him with an open pocket knife. He stated also that he was not intoxicated, and the only purpose of his presence there was that he was journeying on his usual route from his office to his home.
This is a scant delineation of the evidence but it is sufficient for the purpose of this review.
There were very few objections interposed during the time the testimony was being taken. We have, with the required care, considered each ruling relating thereto, and we do not find harmful error in any of them.
A response to these matters would not be of any value, since the presented questions relate only to elementary rules of evidence.
At the beginning of the trial proceedings, appellant's attorney asked the prospective jurors this question:
'Has any one of you got any personal feeling with reference to Mr. Williams who is a lawyer and has been a lawyer here for a long time, and during the years have you any opinion against him or favorable to him; have you any fixed opinion against him, anything that you have heard or known during the years that would affect your verdict adversely or favorably,--if there is, let us know?'
Immediately following the query the record discloses the following:
'The only response to this question was from one juror, Mr. Arthur B. Curtis, who stated aloud in the presence up in this inquiry I am for conviction.' jurors: 'Your Honor, I want to say this,--if there is any whiskey mixed up in this inquiry I am for conviction.' After this statement by said juror the following proceedings were had:
'Mr. Ray: What is your ruling on my motion?
'The Court: I overrule your motion.
It is insisted that the judgment below should be reversed because of the court's ruling as indicated in the above quotation.
In reviewing the question we must accord due deference to the judgment of the trial judge. He was on the scene and saw and heard all that transpired. He was in a position to evaluate the nature and purport of the occurrence. Much must be left to his discretion in denying the motion.
It is not altogether clear just what the prospective juror meant by his reply to the quoted question. Without doubt it was a remark coming from a person who entertained extreme views on the matter to which his reply related.
The juror was excused and, if any injury inured to the rights of the accused, it would have to be predicated on the impression this remark made on any other juror or jurors who were selected to try the case.
The writer authored the opinion for this court in the recent case of Usrey v. State, 35 Ala.App. 434, 48 So.2d 443. I had this to say:
'It is often difficult to decide whether or not the substantial rights of a party litigant have been injuriously affected by some event, incident, or happening which transpired during the progress of a trial.
In the case of McGuire v. State, 239 Ala. 315, 194 So. 815, while the jury was being qualified to try the case, one of the number asked to be excused for the reason that he thought the defendant was guilty. This was said in the hearing and presence of the prospective jurors. The court refused to charge error on account of the action of the court below in denying the defendant's request for another panel from which to select his jury.
We think because of its import and directive application this assertion was more damnifying than the statement of instant concern.
Counsel for appellant in oral argument and in brief lays much stress on the doctrine that when matters of this kind arise it is not necessary to show that the occurrence controlled or determined the verdict of the jury, but rather whether or not the verdict might have been affected by it.
In applying...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woods v. State
...consider the alleged misconduct on the basis of how it might affect or influence men of ordinary impressionability. Williams v. State, 36 Ala.App. 26, 58 So.2d 646 (1951). Therefore the mere determination that some unauthorized communication occurred without some additional finding by the t......
-
Payne v. State
...so hypothesized and hence their refusal does not constitute reversible error. Bush v. State, 211 Ala. 1, 100 So. 312; Williams v. State, 36 Ala.App. 26, 58 So.2d 646, certiorari denied, 257 Ala. 337, 58 So.2d 653. See Johnson v. State, 257 Ala. 644, 60 So.2d 818. We pretermit consideration ......
-
Freeman v. State
...11 and 29 are practically in duplicate. They were refused without error. May v. State, 253 Ala. 517, 45 So.2d 698; Williams v. State, 36 Ala.App. 26, 58 So.2d 646; Williams v. State, 36 Ala.App. 583, 61 So.2d 861. Charge 21 omits any reference to retreat. It is also faulty in not relating t......
-
McVeigh v. State
...Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348, 96 So. 381; Washington Times Co. v. Bonner, 66 App.D.C. 280, 86 F.2d 836, 110 A.L.R. 393; Williams v. State, 37 Ala.Spp. 26, 58 So.2d 646. It is last contended that the trial court committed error in refusing appellant a new trial on the ground of newly discover......