Green v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Green v. State

51 So. 734, 165 Ala. 79, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 86

DecidedJanuary 20, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 51 So. 734 (Green v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Green v. State, 51 So. 734, 165 Ala. 79, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 86 (Ala. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

MoCLELLAN, J.

— The conviction was of manslaughter in tbe first degree. Self-defense was tbe justification offered. Tbe deceased was a woman, with whom, it seems, tbe prisoner bad for some time, associated. Tbe only possible qnestious for review arise out of tbe refusal to defendant of special charges numbered from 4 to 10, inclusive.

Those numbered 6, 9, and 10 were each argumentative, if not otherwise faulty. They were well refused. Those numbered 4, 7, and 8 each pretermitted, in hypothesis, tbe defendant’s honesty of tbe belief of bis peril at tbe time tbe fatal shot was fired by him. They may have other vices. That numbered 5 was variously faulty. One of its vices, to be stated, was sufficient to justify tbe court in its refusal. Its effect was to exclude from tbe jury’s consideration tbe evidence of defendant’s- flight, unless tbe jury found from tbe evidence that tbe shooting of deceased was done willfully, de[83]*83liberately, premeditatedly, and with malice. Flight is, of course, a circumstance to he considered by the jury, even on the inquiry of guilt vel non of manslaughter.— 1 May. Dig. pp. 381, 332.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Simpson, and Mayfield, JJ., concur.

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

MoCLELLAN, J.

— The conviction was of manslaughter in tbe first degree. Self-defense was tbe justification offered. Tbe deceased was a woman, with whom, it seems, tbe prisoner bad for some time, associated. Tbe only possible qnestious for review arise out of tbe refusal to defendant of special charges numbered from 4 to 10, inclusive.

Those numbered 6, 9, and 10 were each argumentative, if not otherwise faulty. They were well refused. Those numbered 4, 7, and 8 each pretermitted, in hypothesis, tbe defendant’s honesty of tbe belief of bis peril at tbe time tbe fatal shot was fired by him. They may have other vices. That numbered 5 was variously faulty. One of its vices, to be stated, was sufficient to justify tbe court in its refusal. Its effect was to exclude from tbe jury’s consideration tbe evidence of defendant’s- flight, unless tbe jury found from tbe evidence that tbe shooting of deceased was done willfully, de[83]*83liberately, premeditatedly, and with malice. Flight is, of course, a circumstance to he considered by the jury, even on the inquiry of guilt vel non of manslaughter.— 1 May. Dig. pp. 381, 332.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Simpson, and Mayfield, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 So. 734, 165 Ala. 79, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-state-ala-1910.