Williams v. State
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | McCLELLAN, J. |
| Citation | Williams v. State, 114 Ala. 19, 21 So. 993 (Ala. 1897) |
| Decision Date | 15 April 1897 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
Appeal from circuit court, Washington county; William S. Anderson Judge.
Samp Williams was indicted, tried, and convicted, with one Will Wood, for the murder of one Chris Chambliss "by hanging him with a rope," and he appeals. Reversed.
Saml. B. Browne and Chas. L. Bromberg, Jr., for appellant.
Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Charge 11 requested by defendants, "That proof of contradictory statements or declarations on a material point made by the witness John Hollinghead may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to the truth of the testimony of the witness John Hollinghead," and charge 12, of the same tenor, as to the witness Aaron Hollinghead, should have been given. Washington v. State, 58 Ala. 355; Gregg v. State, 106 Ala. 44, 49, 17 So. 321. There is no merit in the remaining exceptions reserved on the trial below. Reversed and remanded.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Williams v. State
-
Brown v. State
...charge is among the assignments of error. This charge has been held good in Gregg v. State, 106 Ala. 44, 17 So. 321, and Williams v. State, 114 Ala. 19, 21 So. 993, which seems to be based upon doctrine in the case of Washington v. State, 58 Ala. 355. We do not think the charge in question ......
-
Knight v. State
...H, here, that it asserted an incorrect proposition of law; and the cases of Gregg v. State, 106 Ala. 44, 17 So. 321, and Williams v. State, 114 Ala. 19, 21 So. 993, expressly overruled on the point. It follows that charge H was properly refused. Charges J and G do not materially differ from......
-
Rose v. State
... ... Charge ... 11 was calculated to mislead the jury to the conclusion that, ... although they may have believed some of the facts detailed in ... the dying declaration, they should disregard the whole ... statement. The cases of Gregg v. State, 106 Ala. 44, ... 17 So. 321, and Williams v. State, 114 Ala. 19, 21 ... [42 So. 23.] have no application to this charge ... Charge ... 4 is incomplete and unintelligible ... Affirmed ... McCLELLAN, ... C.J., and SIMPSON and ANDERSON, JJ., ... ...