Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

117 Ala. 32

Nicholson v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1897

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1897-11-15

Tried before the Hon. J. A. Bilbro. The appellant, John Nicholson, was indicted and tried for murder in the second degree in killing Clarence McConnell, by shooting him with a gun, was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for two years.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1897-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 1912

15 state decisions

80189719001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McCLELLAN, J.

¶1There was evidence adduced which tended to show that Ed. Batty and Charley Nicholson shot and killed the deceased. The theory of the State was, that even if this were so, the defendant was yet guilty for that he aided and abetted in the homicide, and there was evidence from which it might have been so inferred. But, on'the other hand, there was testimony for the defendant which tended to show that he had no connection with the offense, and that all he did on the occasion of its commission was to put the deceased out of the room where a dance was going on, and where the deceased was. endeavoring and threatening to make serious trouble, immediately before the shooting occurred. On this state of case the 2d charge refused to defendant was clearly not abstract. It was as follows: “The-court charges the jury, that if the jury believe from all the evidence that Ed. Batty and Charley Nicholson shot and killed Stude (Clarence) McConnell, and'that defendant did no more than try to keep peace the night of the shooting, then the defendant is not guilty, and the jury must acquit the defendant.” And we are unable to conceive why it was not given. Its refusal was error.

¶2Charge 5 requested for defendant might have misled the jury to the conclusion that if. they had a reasonable doubt of defendant’s gui]t growing out of.a certain part of the evidence they should acquit him, even though such doubt were dissipated by other evidence, or did not exist upon a consideration of the whole evidence.

¶3The remaining charges refused to the defendant are manifestly bad ; some of them inherently and affirmatively, others as being abstract, and others as being argumentative.

¶4The court committed no error - in its action upon the charges requested by the prosecution.

¶5As the matter is presented in the bill of exceptions we fail to see the pertinency of the testimony of the witness Julia Newsome that she “heard the defendant say semething to the deceased, and the deceased replied: T be d — d if I do it.’ ”

¶6There is no merit in the other exceptions to the court’s rulings on the admissibility of testimony.

¶7Reversed and remanded.

/117/ala/32 · .json · Public domain