Fowler v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Fowler v. State

85 So. 828, 17 Ala. App. 415, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 86

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 13, 1920

Docket8 Div. 705.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 So. 828 (Fowler 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

Fowler v. State, 85 So. 828, 17 Ala. App. 415, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 86 (Ala. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1] It having been shown that the wound on the party assaulted was on the neck, in close proximity to the jugular vein, it was relevant and proper to prove by the physician the relative positions of the arteries and veins in the neck and the dangerous character of the wound. The court did not err. in its various rulings on the admissibility of evidence touching the question.

[2] It was competent to prove by the physician to whom the wounded man was carried for medical attention, that defendant came to his house about 10 minutes after the wounded man had been brought there, and, not being under arrest, and without accusation having been made against him, made inquiry as to the seriousness of the wound. It having been shown that the defendant was not influenced by hope or fear, it was competent for the state to prove declarations, made by the defendant a short time after the difficulty, tending to show a consciousness of guilt. Thomas v. State, 139 Ala. 30, 36 South. 734; Washingtop v. State, 106 Ala. 58, 17 South. 546.

AVe find 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, J.

[1] It having been shown that the wound on the party assaulted was on the neck, in close proximity to the jugular vein, it was relevant and proper to prove by the physician the relative positions of the arteries and veins in the neck and the dangerous character of the wound. The court did not err. in its various rulings on the admissibility of evidence touching the question.

[2] It was competent to prove by the physician to whom the wounded man was carried for medical attention, that defendant came to his house about 10 minutes after the wounded man had been brought there, and, not being under arrest, and without accusation having been made against him, made inquiry as to the seriousness of the wound. It having been shown that the defendant was not influenced by hope or fear, it was competent for the state to prove declarations, made by the defendant a short time after the difficulty, tending to show a consciousness of guilt. Thomas v. State, 139 Ala. 30, 36 South. 734; Washingtop v. State, 106 Ala. 58, 17 South. 546.

AVe find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 So. 828, 17 Ala. App. 415, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fowler-v-state-alactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack