Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 02 June 1904
• Citation: 37 So. 228,140 Ala. 10
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

37 So. 228

140 Ala. 10

WILLIAMS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 2, 1904

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; William H. Thomas, Judge.

John Williams was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant in this case, John Williams, was indicted and tried for the murder of James Jones by striking him with a bottle was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for five years.

The state introduced as a witness one John Williams, who testified that he saw the difficulty between the defendant and the deceased; that the deceased kept a small store, and went to the house of the defendant and asked him to pay him a bill which he owed him; that the defendant said to the deceased that, if he could not wait until he got ready to pay him, he could fight it out, and thereupon the defendant picked up a large halfgallon bottle and began hitting the deceased, Jim Jones, on the side of the head, in such a manner as to break the bottle; and that the defendant and deceased then grappled and scuffled out into the street. There was evidence which showed that the deceased died from the wounds inflicted in this difficulty. There was other evidence introduced tending to corroborate the testimony of the witness John Williams. The facts in reference to the question asked the said John Williams, on cross-examination to the sustaining of objections to which the defendant excepted, are set forth in the opinion.

The evidence for the defendant tended to show that the deceased Jim Jones, came to the house of the defendant, and, cursing and abusing the defendant, demanded that he should pay him that the deceased struck the defendant; and that thereupon they got into a scuffle, and, in the fight, the defendant struck the deceased with a bottle.

There was evidence introduced for the defendant tending to show his good character.

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: "(1) If the jury believe the evidence they must not convict the defendant of murder in the first degree. (2) If the jury believe the evidence they cannot convict the defendant of murder in either the first or second degree. (3) If the jury find from the evidence that the deceased at the time the blow was struck was making an assault on the defendant, and that the defendant, in resisting such assault, used force not greatly disproportionate to the character of the assault, and death accidentally resulted, this would be self-defense, and the jury should acquit him. (4) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that the bottle used in this case is not per se, as a matter of law, an instrument calculated to produce death and hence the law does not presume malice from its use. (5) If the jury believe the evidence, they must not convict the defendant of murder in the first or second degree, or of manslaughter in the first degree. (6) If the jury believe the evidence, they must acquit the defendant. (7) If the jury find from the evidence that the deceased at the time the blow was struck was making an assault on the defendant, and that the defendant, in resisting the said assault, used force not greatly disproportionate to the character of the assault and death resulted by misadventure, then the jury should acquit him. (8) If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant did not intend to kill the deceased, but merely employed that force necessary to resist an assault which the deceased was at the time making on him, and death accidentally...