Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

76 Ala. 98

West v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1884

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1884-12-15

Prom the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Tiros. M. Arrington.

Relies on Hubbard v. State · Kilgore v. State · Snow v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1991

21 state decisions

40188418901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

STONE, C. J.

¶1— There is clearly no error in this record. It is fully proved that the declarations of the deceased, offered and given in evidence, were made under a sense of impending death. The ease is brought directly within the rule. — Kilgore v. The State, 74 Ala. 1.

¶2Nor was the unsworn confession by another, that he had committed the crime, competent evidence for the accused. It was but hearsay. — Snow v. The State, 58 Ala. 372.

¶3The charge given and excepted to, was free from error. Banks v. State, 72 Ala. 522.

¶4No question of venue was raised in the court below, nor is such question presented by any ruling of the court. — Hubbard v. The State, 72 Ala. 164.

¶5There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the City Court must be affirmed.

¶6The day appointed for the prisoner’s execution having passed, it is ordered, that the sentence pronounced by the City Court be executed, in the jail-yard of Montgomery county, Alabama, between the hours of 10 o’clock a. m. and 2 o’clock p. m., on the thirteenth day of March next; and the sheriff of Montgomery county aforesaid is charged with the execution of this sentence, in the manner prescribed by law.

/76/ala/98 · .json · Public domain