Dill v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Dill v. State

159 So. 914, 26 Ala. App. 636

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 19, 1935

Docket8 Div. 913.

StatusPublished

This text of 159 So. 914 (Dill 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

Dill v. State, 159 So. 914, 26 Ala. App. 636 (Ala. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

The indictment in this case charged murder in the first degree and the evidence on the part of the state tended to prove a willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder. The testimony of the defendant as a witness in his own behalf tended to rebut this and to prove an act of self-defense, although the defendant went to the field of the dead man, armed with a loaded shotgun, where deceased was engaged in the peaceful pursuit of planting cotton. Deceased was unarmed and between the plow handles when defendant fired the shot, inflicting a wound in the face from which deceased died in a few hours.

No one was present at the time of the shooting except defendant and his victim.

We have read this record carefully, and in it we find no error prejudicial to defendant. He received every consideration from the court during the trial to which he was entitled. 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

SAMFORD, Judge.

The indictment in this case charged murder in the first degree and the evidence on the part of the state tended to prove a willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder. The testimony of the defendant as a witness in his own behalf tended to rebut this and to prove an act of self-defense, although the defendant went to the field of the dead man, armed with a loaded shotgun, where deceased was engaged in the peaceful pursuit of planting cotton. Deceased was unarmed and between the plow handles when defendant fired the shot, inflicting a wound in the face from which deceased died in a few hours.

No one was present at the time of the shooting except defendant and his victim.

We have read this record carefully, and in it we find no error prejudicial to defendant. He received every consideration from the court during the trial to which he was entitled. There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 So. 914, 26 Ala. App. 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dill-v-state-alactapp-1935.