Zimmerman v. State

• Decision Date: 16 April 1901
• Citation: 30 So. 18
• Parties: ZIMMERMAN v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

30 So. 18

ZIMMERMAN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 16, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Wilcox county; John Moore, Judge.

Willie Zimmerman was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The evidence for the state tended to show that E. A. Culpepper W. E. Davis, and others went to the house of one Will Franklin in search of the defendant, for the purpose of arresting him; that, upon the door of the house being opened the defendant, who was behind the door, pulled a pistol upon Culpepper and snapped it in his face; and that he subsequently fired three times with the pistol, and twice with a gun. The defendant's evidence tended to show that he did not snap a pistol at Culpepper, nor did he shoot at him at all. During the examination of E. A. Culpepper as a witness for the state, he testified that he went to the house of Will Franklin to arrest the defendant; that "Constable Gaines went with him [witness], and had a warrant to arrest him [defendant]." The defendant objected to the statement about the warrant, and moved to exclude the same, because the warrant, being in writing, was the best evidence. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. Upon the cross-examination of E. A Culpepper as a witness, he testified that W. E. Davis, one Clark, and three other persons went with him to the house of Franklin for the purpose of arresting the defendant on the night of the assault charged; that Gaines, the constable, was not with them at the time, he having gone to another house in search of the defendant. W. E. Davis, after testifying to the assault made by the defendant at the time he, Culpepper, and others went to the house of Franklin for the purpose of arresting the defendant, further testified as follows "Culpepper asked me to go with them; said Gaines, the constable, wanted me to go with him." The defendant objected to the portion of the testimony quoted above, and moved to exclude the same, on the ground that it was hearsay evidence, and that there was better evidence of the fact testified to. The court overruled the objection and motion and the defendant duly excepted. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the defendant requested the court to give to the jury several written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them. Under the opinion, it is unnecessary to set out charge numbered 2 refused to the...