Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Ala. App. 282

91 So 502

Vickers v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided June 21, 1921

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1921-06-21

W. Harralson, Judge. John Vickers was indicted for murder of Joe Bishop, convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals. Mrs. Bishop testified, among other things, that Vickers and Joe Bishop had a difficulty “down in a field at our place in Jackson county,” and that in this difficulty the shot was fired that resulted in Joe Bishop’s death.

Relies on Lee v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1921-06-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 1986

15 state decisions

401921193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

¶1The testimony of Mrs. Joe Bishop was sufficient to establish the venue in Jackson county and therefore the court did not err in refusing to give the general charge as requested by defendant.

¶2The court, on motion of the defendant excluded all the clothing of deceased. If there had been any error in admitting them, the error was cured, and left the defendant without exception on this point.

¶3The testimony of the defendant, taken on the preliminary trial of the case, was objected to on the ground that much of the testimony then being read was illegal, immaterial, and irrelevant. The objection was to the good as well as to the bad, and therefore the objection was properly overruled. Besides there was no motion made by defendant to exclude the part of the testimony claimed to be illegal.

¶4The solicitor should not frame his questions so as to assume a fact not proven, but when the witness, as in this case, answers in such way as to refute the assumption, it is error without injury.

¶5In a prosecution for murder, the burden is on the defendant to show that there was a necessity to take life, or that the circumstances were such as to impress on the mind of a reasonable person a belief that there was such a necessity and did so impress him.

¶6Charge 2, requested by the defendant, among other infirmities, did not meet this requirement, and was properly refused. 8 Michie's Dig. 193. Besides the charge entirely ignores the doctrine of retreat.

¶7The right of a person to defend himself in his own house, without retreating, does not extend to lands outside the curtilage. Lee v. State, 92 Ala. 15, 9 So. 407, 25 Am. St. Rep. 17.

¶8There is no error in the record. Let the judgment be affirmed.

¶9Affirmed.

¶10

On Rehearing.
It is insisted in brief of counsel that the trial court erred in sustaining the state's objection to a question by defendant's counsel propounded to defendant, seeking to bring out details of former difficulties between the parties. In these rulings the court did not err. The fact that there had been prior difficulties was permissible, but as to the details, it has long been settled they may not be gone into.

¶11Application overruled. *284

/18/alaapp/282 · .json · Public domain