Wray v. State
Citation | 154 Ala. 36,45 So. 697 |
Parties | WRAY v. STATE. |
Decision Date | 06 February 1908 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; D. A. Greene, Judge.
Richard Wray was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
B. M Allen, Robert N. Bell, Gaston & Pettus, and E. W. Winston for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The tragedy, out of which arose the indictment and conviction of this defendant of murder in the second degree, took place in a large room in a house of ill fame. At the time there were present, beside the deceased, Freeman, and the defendant Wray, four persons, two women and two men. The cause of the death of the deceased, it is conceded, was a wound inflicted by a pistol ball. The ball appears to have entered the body just above the hip bone on the right side; and the examining physician described the course of the bullet to have been indeflectively "upward at an angle of forty-five degrees, penetrated the right lobe of the liver, and ranged more to the front than to the lateral portion, from a perpendicular or medial line of the body." When this physician reached the body of deceased in the room where he was killed, his foot struck a revolver then lying on the floor. The scabbard of the weapon was near by. There appears from the bill no controversy as to the facts as here briefly rehearsed. We refrain from specific reference to any testimony adduced, further than is necessary to decision.
The state's theory was, of course, that the defendant inflicted the immediately mortal wound; while the defendant always asserting his innocence, advanced the theory that the death of the deceased was due to his own act. The evidence, in respect of the agency producing the wound, was purely circumstantial. The state sought to fix the responsibility on the accused by testimony tending to show that deceased, just prior to his death, had incurred the ill will of the accused by familiar conduct with a woman with whom it appeared the accused had frequently shared her bed. However, the accused denied such ill will and adduced testimony to show his friendly relations with the deceased. It is obvious, from this record, that one of the material elements involved on the trial was: Who, of those in the room, shot Freeman? On this vital issue, cast as the conclusion must have been by the whole circumstances attending the event, including the location of the parties in the room, their attitudes, and their general conduct within the res gestæ of the transaction, it was, of course, important to draw, by both chief and cross-examination of all those present, from all the witnesses produced, their knowledge of every incident connected with the death of Freeman.
C. M Lansdowne was of those in the room at the time Freeman was shot. He was a witness for the state; but at the time of the trial he was, the record shows, a very sick man. After some delay he was brought into the courtroom and the bill of exceptions thus details the condition of the witness, the contention of the defendant, and the action of the court in the premises: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chawkley v. Wabash Railway Co.
...... return a verdict in favor of the defendants. Under all of the. evidence in the case plaintiff failed to make a case for the. jury. State ex rel. Wabash Ry. Co. v. Bland, 281. S.W. 690; State ex rel. v. Bland, 237 S.W. 1018;. Sullivan v. Gideon Railroad Co., 271 S.W. 983;. Betz ...128; Ullom v. Griffith, 263 S.W. 876; Franklin v. Kansas. City, 260 S.W. 503; Savings Bank v. Denker, 275. Mo. 607; Wray v. State, 154 Ala. 36, 16 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cases, 364. (4) The plaintiff had no right to maintain. the action under the second and third counts of ......
-
Henderson v. Twin Falls County
... 80 P.2d 801 59 Idaho 97 MARIE HENDERSON, Respondent, v. TWIN FALLS COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO, Appellant No. 6371 Supreme Court of Idaho March 28, 1938 . . TRIAL -. DEATH OF WITNESS BEFORE CROSS-EXAMINATION - ... entitled to have his testimony, given on direct examination,. stricken. ( Curtice v. West , 50 Hun 47, 2 N.Y.S. 507;. Wray v. State , 154 Ala. 36, 45 So. 697, 129 Am. St. 18, 16 Ann. Cas. 362, 15 L. R. A., N. S., 493, and note.). . . In such. a case it is ......
-
Burkett v. State
...case. Thomas v. State, 393 So.2d 504 (Ala.Cr.App.1981); Snipes v. State, 364 So.2d 424 (Ala.Cr.App.1978). The cases of Wray v. State, 154 Ala. 36, 45 So. 697 (1908), and Strange v. State, 43 Ala.App. 599, 197 So.2d 437 (1966), cert. denied, 280 Ala. 718, 197 So.2d 447 (1967), upon which app......
-
State v. McCrill
...86, 1134; Dominges v. State, 7 Smedes & M. 475, 45 Am. Dec. 315; State v. Weil, 83 S.C. 478, 26 L.R.A.(N.S.) 461, 65 S.E. 634; Wray v. State, 129 Am. St. Rep. 30, On a prosecution for having in possession intoxicating liquors with intent to sell, a warrant for the search of defendant's prem......