Wilson v. State
| Citation | 195 Ala. 675,71 So. 115 |
| Decision Date | 10 February 1916 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 151 |
| Parties | WILSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; H.P. Heflin, Judge.
John Wilson was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
B.M Allen and M.H. Murphy, both of Birmingham, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and Hugo L. Black, Sol., of Birmingham, for the State.
Appellant was indicted for the murder of one Hugh Guthrie. The indictment charged that the crime was committed by the defendant's striking the deceased with some blunt instrument, a more particular description of which was unknown to the grand jury.
On the night of the fatal difficulty, in the town of Wylam, Ala., the defendant, the deceased and others were together playing pool. They were all on friendly terms and were drinking to a greater or less extent. They left the poolroom and walked along until they reached a point on the railroad track near Forty-Second street, where they stopped and sang a few songs. One of the songs was the Scotch ballad, as named in this record, "Wee doch and dorriss." The deceased, who was a Scotchman, resented the fact that the defendant, who insists he is of French descent, was unable to properly pronounce the words of the song, and called him a "______ blather," at the same time striking him a blow in the face. Thereupon the defendant struck the deceased and knocked him down. Deceased regained his feet and he and the defendant clinched, and both fell together on the railroad track between the rails, in an "angling" position, as described by the defendant; the two rolled off the track a few feet, and when a few moments later the defendant regained his feet, the deceased was found to be in a dying condition, and within a few minutes was dead. No sign of blood was found on any portion of the railroad track nor on the cross-ties protruding from the roadbed; but blood was found on the ground where deceased lay, a few feet away from the track. Without waiting to ascertain deceased's condition the defendant went to his home a few blocks away, and a few minutes later when informed of the serious condition of deceased he returned and assisted in removing the dying man to the hospital.
The above facts appear to be practically undisputed, as we gather from the record of the case and from briefs of counsel. No witness testified to the use of any weapon by the defendant, but those present at the time of the difficulty stated that he had no weapon and only struck deceased with his fist. A piece of two-inch piping was found by one of the officers, lying among some weeds in a patch about 40 feet from the scene of the difficulty, and the officer testified to certain indications tending to show that this piece of piping (which he thinks was used as a stake) had been freshly thrown in the patch of weeds. No blood was found on the piping, however. Defendant testified that he struck deceased with his fist, knocking him down, and that when deceased regained his feet they clinched and he tripped deceased, again throwing him down on the railroad track. There was evidence tending to show that deceased fell face downward. Defendant insists that he had no weapon of any kind, and that when he went to his home he was unaware that the deceased had been seriously injured. It was the contention of the state that defendant struck deceased with some blunt instrument.
Examination of the deceased showed that the frontal bone was fractured, the nose broken, and a part of the upper jaw and several teeth broken loose. There seems to be an agreement among the physicians that the fracture of the skull was the cause of the death. The theory of the defendant is that this fracture was caused by the fall on the railroad track when deceased's head struck the iron rail or a cross-tie, or some other hard substance on the track. The defendant was found guilty of murder in the second degree, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment for 65 years.
Dr. Roundtree, a witness for the state, after testifying that it was the fracture of the skull which caused the death of deceased, and that the injury could not have been inflicted by the naked fist of a man but was probably caused by some blunt instrument, said that in his opinion a fall on the railroad track and the striking of one's head or face on the rails or on the end of a cross-tie would not produce such injuries. He further testified that he had heard of a man's falling on the ground or sidewalk and sustaining a fractured skull, but that it was a fall of some distance from the ground. Dr. Roundtree was then asked the following question by defendant:
"I asked you whether or not a man standing in an upright position on the ground, if you have not known of his falling and getting a fractured skull by hitting it on the ground or any hard substance?"
The state objected to the question on the ground that it did not hypothesize the facts in the case. The court sustained the objection.
Dr. Davidson, a witness for the state, after testifying substantially as did Dr. Roundtree, was asked similar questions by the defense, to which objections by the state were sustained by the court. A somewhat kindred ruling was made, on the objection of the state to a question asked Dr. Hamrick, a witness for the defendant.
In Parrish v. State, 139 Ala. 16, 43, 36 So. 1012, 1020, it was said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perkins v. State
...So.2d 732 (1943)(injuries could have been caused by having been struck with a hand or fist and by having been choked); Wilson v. State, 195 Ala. 675, 71 So. 115 (1916)(death could have been caused by falling on a railroad rail); Simon v. State, 108 Ala. 27, 18 So. 731 (1895)(death was the e......
-
St. John v. State, 7 Div. 329
...show bias of an important witness as to contested issues in a case. Wells v. State, 292 Ala. 256, 292 So.2d 471 (1973); Wilson v. State, 195 Ala. 675, 71 So. 115 (1916). We find, however, that the record does not show any specific instance in which the court sustained the State's objection ......
-
Chambliss v. State
...the sound discretion of the trial court to permit the question and answer. Barfield v. Wright, 286 Ala. 402, 240 So.2d 593; Wilson v. State, 195 Ala. 675, 71 So. 115. Finally, appellant complains that the Court erred in overruling his objections to questions posed to McCormick as to what wa......
-
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Martin
... ... was an experienced engineer, also further information that he ... was "a member of the Brotherhood of Engineers of the ... State of Alabama" ... Couch ... had testified in a former trial of this case and defendant on ... cross-examination asked him if he did not ... testimony.' " Tate v. State, 86 Ala. 33, 5 So. 575 ... The ... question is discussed in Wilson v. State, 195 Ala ... 675, 71 So. 115, 117, with reference to expert witnesses, as ... here, and we there observed: "It is usual in ... ...