Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 20 March 1928 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 278 |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.C.B. Gwin, Judge.
Ursa D Wright was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Mathews & Mathews and Goodwyn & Ross, all of Bessemer, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, predicated upon an indictment charging the defendant with the offense of murder in the first degree. The punishment was fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for ten years.
Innumerable exceptions were reserved upon the trial to the rulings of the court upon the admission and exclusion of evidence. There were also numerous charges refused to defendant, and the insistence is here made that the court erred in refusing to give these charges.
The evidence in the case discloses, without conflict, that this appellant killed Stewart Burchfield, the deceased named in the indictment, by shooting him with a pistol.
The evidence also discloses without dispute that the death wound was in the back of deceased, and that this wound was inflicted by the only shot fired by defendant.
The defendant set up self-defense, and insisted that deceased struck him a glancing blow upon his shoulder with a small Stillson wrench, and testified that, at the time the fatal shot was fired by him, the deceased was advancing upon him with the wrench drawn back in striking position.
The actual location of the wound upon the body of the deceased was not in question, and this evidence shows conclusively there was but one wound. It affirmatively appeared, without conflict, in the evidence, that said wound was in the back of the deceased. This being true, such technical errors in the rulings of the court in the manner of permitting such undisputed fact to be proven, will not cause a reversal in this case. Some of the evidence in this connection was entirely admissible as proven. The statute expressly provides that a judgment of conviction must not be reversed because of error, when the court is satisfied that no injury resulted therefrom to the defendant. Code 1923, § 3258. See, also Sup.Ct. rule 45.
The exceptions reserved to the court's rulings upon the evidence of state's witness Mrs. Sallie Rainey (née Burchfield), mother of deceased, are each without merit. There was nothing in these rulings relative to her testimony calculated to erroneously affect the substantial rights of defendant. The killing by defendant of Burchfield,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raines v. State
...of running from him.... There, therefore, existed no necessity, real or apparent, which justified his conduct."); Wright v. State, 22 Ala.App. 376, 377, 115 So. 852 (1928) ("The death wound admittedly being near the center of the back of deceased would of necessity tend to show that, at the......
-
Collier v. State
...in self-defense, the danger to the defendant of death or great bodily harm, either real or apparent, must be imminent. Wright v. State, 22 Ala.App. 376, 115 So. 852; Tittle v. State, 15 Ala.App. 306, 73 So. The conduct of the deceased at the time of the shooting and immediately prior theret......
-
Glass v. State, 4 Div. 543.
... ... defense." See also Cobb v. State, 19 Ala.App ... 345, 346, 348, 97 So. 779; Mangino v. Todd et al., ... 19 Ala.App. 486, 491, 98 So. 323; Moon v. State, 21 ... Ala.App. 111, 112, 105 So. 427; Vaughan v. State, 21 ... Ala.App. 204, 107 So. 797; Wright v. State, 22 ... Ala.App. 376, 115 So. 852; Riddle v. State, 25 ... Ala.App. 142, 142 So. 680; Williams v. State, 26 ... Ala.App. 529, 163 So. 668; Barnum v. State, 28 ... Ala.App. 590, 190 So. 310 ... We note ... a few exceptions to the court's rulings upon the main ... question ... ...
-
Barnum v. State, 6 Div. 414.
... ... of necessity, tend to show that, at the time the fatal shots ... were fired, the defendant could not have been in imminent ... danger of suffering death or grievous bodily harm at the ... hands of deceased. Angling v. State, 137 Ala. 17, 34 ... So. 846; Wright v. State, 22 Ala.App. 376, 115 So ... 852; Riddle v. State, 25 Ala.App. 142, 142 So. 680 ... This, however, was for the jury under the evidence in the ... case. The law is, unless the defendant was in such danger, ... real or apparent, his right of self-defense must fall, and ... the ... ...