Griggs v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Griggs v. State

109 So. 611, 21 Ala. App. 530, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 279

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1926

Docket8 Div. 502.

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 109 So. 611 (Griggs 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

Griggs v. State, 109 So. 611, 21 Ala. App. 530, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 279 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMPORD, J.

The principal insistence of error is the admission of a statement made by deceased, shortly after receiving the shot wound from which he subsequently died; the objection being that the predicate for the admission of a dying declaration had not been properly laid. The predicate made the basis for the declaration was, as testified to by the witness Leach:

“The first I saw of Clark [deceased] he was up on the bank hollering fpr us. I went immediately. I talked to him there. He asked some of us to carry him home, that he was dying. He was shot, wounded at the time.” “Deceased said he drove up and Jesse came out from behind a car and shot him.”

It was proven by other witnesses that at a time subsequent to the foregoing statement, and about three hours before he died, deceased said he would die unless something was done, but no declaration of deceased was admitted on this predicate. If this was the only predicate for the dying declaration, it would perhaps be insufficient. The first predicate, however, was sufficient. Evans v. State, 209 Ala. 563, 96 So. 923.

In the course of his argument to the jury, the solicitor stated to the jury that from the evidence he believed the defendant was guilty, and that, if he did not believe the defendant was guilty, he would not ask the jury to convict him. Exception was reserved to the court’s refusal to exclude this remark. It is apparent that the opinion above expressed was based upon the evidence in the ease. Where this is the case, such expression of opinion will not be sufficient upon which to predicate a reversal. 16 Corpus Juris, p. 908, par. 2257n.

We 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

SAMPORD, J.

The principal insistence of error is the admission of a statement made by deceased, shortly after receiving the shot wound from which he subsequently died; the objection being that the predicate for the admission of a dying declaration had not been properly laid. The predicate made the basis for the declaration was, as testified to by the witness Leach:

“The first I saw of Clark [deceased] he was up on the bank hollering fpr us. I went immediately. I talked to him there. He asked some of us to carry him home, that he was dying. He was shot, wounded at the time.” “Deceased said he drove up and Jesse came out from behind a car and shot him.”

It was proven by other witnesses that at a time subsequent to the foregoing statement, and about three hours before he died, deceased said he would die unless something was done, but no declaration of deceased was admitted on this predicate. If this was the only predicate for the dying declaration, it would perhaps be insufficient. The first predicate, however, was sufficient. Evans v. State, 209 Ala. 563, 96 So. 923.

In the course of his argument to the jury, the solicitor stated to the jury that from the evidence he believed the defendant was guilty, and that, if he did not believe the defendant was guilty, he would not ask the jury to convict him. Exception was reserved to the court’s refusal to exclude this remark. It is apparent that the opinion above expressed was based upon the evidence in the ease. Where this is the case, such expression of opinion will not be sufficient upon which to predicate a reversal. 16 Corpus Juris, p. 908, par. 2257n.

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

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 611, 21 Ala. App. 530, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griggs-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack