Bedsole v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Bedsole v. State

114 So. 786, 22 Ala. App. 274, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 180

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 29, 1927

Docket4 Div. 274.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 114 So. 786 (Bedsole v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bedsole v. State, 114 So. 786, 22 Ala. App. 274, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 180 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

*275 SAMFORD, J:

The evidence for the state tended to prove that the deceased was shot and killed by defendant, on a certain night about 8 o’clock, under circumstances which would have justified a verdict in a much higher degree. On the trial the state was permitted to prove, over the objection and exception of defendant, that at about 7:30 o’clock on the same night defendant purchased from one Mobley eight pistol cartridges, at the same time saying, “I will teach negroes how to swear against white people.” The dead man was a negro and had testified in a ease against Mort Bedsole, a white man and codefendant. The evidence was admissible as tending to show preparation on the part of defendant to do what he afterwards did do. The statement by defendant at the time of the purchase of the pistol cartridges was a part of the transaction of purchase, a declaration of his purpose against a class of which deceased was a member, and under the evidence in this ease it was for the jury to say whether the threat was directed at the deceased. Monteith v. State, 161 Ala. 18, 49 So. 777; Jordan v. State, 79 Ala. 9; Montgomery v. State, 160 Ala. 7, 49 So. 902; Ford v. State, 71 Ala. 385; Morris v. State, 146 Ala. 66, 41 So. 274; Harrison v. State, 79 Ala. 29.

The witness Ross was permitted to testify to a conversation had with defendant at “Mr. McCullough’s.” There was objection and exception by defendant. We do not see the relevancy of this testimony, and perhaps it should have been excluded on that ground, tout if there was error in the ruling there was no injury to defendant.

The defendant appears to have had a fair trial according to the forms of law. There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*275 SAMFORD, J:

The evidence for the state tended to prove that the deceased was shot and killed by defendant, on a certain night about 8 o’clock, under circumstances which would have justified a verdict in a much higher degree. On the trial the state was permitted to prove, over the objection and exception of defendant, that at about 7:30 o’clock on the same night defendant purchased from one Mobley eight pistol cartridges, at the same time saying, “I will teach negroes how to swear against white people.” The dead man was a negro and had testified in a ease against Mort Bedsole, a white man and codefendant. The evidence was admissible as tending to show preparation on the part of defendant to do what he afterwards did do. The statement by defendant at the time of the purchase of the pistol cartridges was a part of the transaction of purchase, a declaration of his purpose against a class of which deceased was a member, and under the evidence in this ease it was for the jury to say whether the threat was directed at the deceased. Monteith v. State, 161 Ala. 18, 49 So. 777; Jordan v. State, 79 Ala. 9; Montgomery v. State, 160 Ala. 7, 49 So. 902; Ford v. State, 71 Ala. 385; Morris v. State, 146 Ala. 66, 41 So. 274; Harrison v. State, 79 Ala. 29.

The witness Ross was permitted to testify to a conversation had with defendant at “Mr. McCullough’s.” There was objection and exception by defendant. We do not see the relevancy of this testimony, and perhaps it should have been excluded on that ground, tout if there was error in the ruling there was no injury to defendant.

The defendant appears to have had a fair trial according to the forms of law. There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 So. 786, 22 Ala. App. 274, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bedsole-v-state-alactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack