Hawks v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Hawks v. State

69 So. 113, 193 Ala. 9, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 152

DecidedApril 8, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 69 So. 113 (Hawks 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

Hawks v. State, 69 So. 113, 193 Ala. 9, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 152 (Ala. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

There are several assignments of error, but they all present but one question, and that is whether on the undisputed facts defendant’s plea of self-defense was entitled to consideration of the court and jury. Defendant and the 14-year-old daughter of deceased had eloped together, their common story being that they were going to Tennessee to marry. They were [10]*10afoot, not making muck progress, and on the third day deceased overtook them. Deceased was armed, and, when he pursued defendant into a close corner, defendant killed him. Defendant had no right to marry this daughter of deceased without the consent of her parents, and when he undertook to elope with her under the circumstances detailed he put himself in the wrong, thereby contributing to the situation out of which arose the necessity to take human life, and forfeiting any claim to complete justification or excuse on the ground of self-defense. — Dabney v. State, 113 Ala. 38, 21 South. 211, 59 Am. St. Rep. 92. We find nothing to the contrary in Oliver v. State, 17 Ala. 587, or the other cases to which we have been referred by counsel for appellant. The judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and McClellan and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

There are several assignments of error, but they all present but one question, and that is whether on the undisputed facts defendant’s plea of self-defense was entitled to consideration of the court and jury. Defendant and the 14-year-old daughter of deceased had eloped together, their common story being that they were going to Tennessee to marry. They were [10]*10afoot, not making muck progress, and on the third day deceased overtook them. Deceased was armed, and, when he pursued defendant into a close corner, defendant killed him. Defendant had no right to marry this daughter of deceased without the consent of her parents, and when he undertook to elope with her under the circumstances detailed he put himself in the wrong, thereby contributing to the situation out of which arose the necessity to take human life, and forfeiting any claim to complete justification or excuse on the ground of self-defense. — Dabney v. State, 113 Ala. 38, 21 South. 211, 59 Am. St. Rep. 92. We find nothing to the contrary in Oliver v. State, 17 Ala. 587, or the other cases to which we have been referred by counsel for appellant. The judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and McClellan and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 So. 113, 193 Ala. 9, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawks-v-state-ala-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack