Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

63 Ala. 173

Armor v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1879

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1879-12-15

From the Circuit Court of Bussell. Tried before the Hon. James E. Cobb. The indictment in this case was found in October, 1879, and charged that the defendants, Scott Armor and Ivey Doles, “ unlawfully and with malice aforethought killed Susan Calhoun, by cuting her with a knife.” The defendants each pleaded not guilty, and were jointly tried.

Relies on Gassenheimer v. State · Johnson v. State · Dupree v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 1974 · most notably Morris v. State (1906), Jordan v. State (1886)

30 state decisions

9018791880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

BRICKELL, C. J.

¶1All the occurrences of the evening, from the time Doles and Armor first came to the house of Miles, until the killing of the deceased, including their several declarations, were but parts of a continuous transaction, and there was no error in permitting the State to prove them.

¶22. Whether, immediately before, and at the time of the homicide, the intoxication of the appellant was so great as to render him incapable of forming a design, or intent, was a conclusion to be drawn by the jury from the facts before them; in reference to which, a witness could not aid them by the expression of an opinion. — Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 313; Johnson v. State, 17 Ala. 618.

¶33. It is now too well settled, by numerous decisions of this court, to be controverted, that in all criminal prosecutions, whether of feloDy or misdemeanor, the accused may prove his good character, not only when a doubt exists on the other proof, but even to generate a doubt of his guilt. Felix v. State, 18 Ala. 720; Harrison v. State, 37 Ala. 154; Dupree v. State, 33 Ala. 380; Hall v. State, 40 Ala. 698. There may be cases, in which the evidence against the accused would satj isfy the jury of guilt, if his character was unknown; but, that shown to be good, and that he had never indicated the particular wicked traits involved in the crime charged, would, perhaps, produce a reasonable doubt of guilt in the minds of the jury. So, there may be cases, in which the evidence of guilt is so clear and convincing, that no evidence of character can weaken its force. Character is a fact fit to be proved on behalf of the accused, on every criminal accusation; but its value, intrinsic or relative, will vary according to the proof to which it is opposed, and in connection with which it must be weighed and estimated by the jury. It does not shield from the consequences of a criminal act, proved to the satisfaction of the jury; though it may raise a reasonable doubt of the act having been done with the criminal intent.

¶4We find no error in the instructions to the jury, to which exceptions were taken, nor in the other rulings of the court.

¶5The judgment is affirmed.

/63/ala/173 · .json · Public domain