Hays v. State

63 So. 7, 183 Ala. 76, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 551
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 30, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 63 So. 7 (Hays 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
Hays v. State, 63 So. 7, 183 Ala. 76, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 551 (Ala. 1913).

Opinion

MAYFIELD, J.

— The defendant was indicted, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, for the murder of R. D. Sowell.

The record proper appears to be regular, and discloses no reversible error. The transcript shows a waiver of a special venire, made in writing and entered of record, as is authorized by section 7264 of the Code.

The bill of exceptions shows objections or exceptions to only one matter during the progress of the trial, and that "was as to the introduction in evidence of an affidavit, made by deceased, charging the defendant with a violation of the prohibition laws touching the sale of intoxicating liquors. This evidence was admissible, in connection with other evidence to show motive. There was evidence showing threats made by defendant to kill the deceased, and for the reason that deceased had reported him for the violation of the law; and, according to the witness Kaufman, that defendant, speaking to the witness and referring to the deceased, had used this language: “That damned man there swore a lie against me, and I am going to kill him.”

The affidavit, under the circumstances, was clearly admissible in evidence. A motive to commit a crime is to be inferred from other facts, and is not, on account of its nature,'susceptible of direct proof; yet evidence which shows or tends to show facts from which the jury may infer motive is admissible in evidence. — Fowler v. State, 155 Ala. 21, 45 South. 913; Ward v. State, 153 [78]*78(Ala. 9, 45 South. 221] Nordan v. State, 143 Ala. 13, 39 South. 406.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Anderson and de Graeeenried, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Peeples v. State
601 So. 2d 186 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1992)
Bowden v. State
137 So. 2d 621 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Dean v. State
197 So. 53 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1940)
Lewis v. State
177 So. 205 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
McKinlay v. State
141 So. 882 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)
Henderson v. State of Florida
113 So. 689 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)
Hancock v. State
105 So. 401 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1925)
Bryant v. State
103 So. 170 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1925)
Cox v. State
99 So. 126 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
Young v. State
96 So. 381 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1923)
McQuagge v. State
87 So. 60 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1920)
Riggins v. State
83 So. 267 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1919)
Russell v. State
82 So. 805 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1919)
Hobbs v. State
81 So. 444 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1919)
Dixon v. State
80 So. 741 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1919)
Sandlin v. State
79 So. 714 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1918)
Crane v. State
79 So. 806 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1918)
Martinez v. State
79 So. 751 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1918)
Milligan v. State
78 So. 535 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1918)
Settles v. State
78 So. 287 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 So. 7, 183 Ala. 76, 1913 Ala. LEXIS 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hays-v-state-ala-1913.