Hill v. State

Decided December 18, 1913

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1913-12-18

Heard before Hon. T. L. Sowell. Tom Hill was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. The evidence tended to show that all the parties were drinking, or had been drinking, when they met where the difficulty occurred, and that there Avas considerable whisky among them. Evidence for defendant tends to show that he was very drunk when he .fired the shot.

Relies on Heninburg v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1913-12-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1977

6 state decisions

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 →

WALKER, P. -I.

¶1Charges 1 and 8, refused to the defendant, were not. abstract, and each of them was such a charge as should have been given, Avhen duly requested by the defendant. — Heninburg v. State, 151 Ala. 26, 48 South. 959. The, action of the court on these and on other charges given and refused, as well as instructions given in the oral charge, make it plain that it entertained the view that, the voluntary drunkenness of the defendant, though it rendered him incapable of forming an intent or purpose to do anything, could not have the effect, of reducing a homicide committed by him below the grade of manslaughter in the first degree. That, this view is an erroneous one is shown by the ruling above cited.

¶2Reversed and remanded.