Hodge v. State

98 Ala. 10
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 98 Ala. 10 (Hodge 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
Hodge v. State, 98 Ala. 10 (Ala. 1893).

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

It is common knowledge that dogs may be trained to follow the tracks of a human being with considerable certainty and accuracy. The evidence in this case showed that a dog thus trained was within a very short time after the homicide put upon the tracks of the person toward whom all the circumstances strongly pointed as the guilty agent, and that the dog as if following these tracks or “trailing” went to the house of the defendant. It was also in evidence, by several witnesses, that the tracks found at the [12]*12scene of the homicide were followed by them thence to the house of the defendant, being measured at various points along the route, and otherwise, at each of such points, identified as being made by the same shoes as were the tracks at the place of the murder; and that the route thus traced by them was precisely that taken by the dog throughout. On this state of case, we are of the opinion that the fact that the dog, trained to track men as shown in the testimony was put on the tracks at the scene of the homicide and, “taking the trail” so to speak, went thence to defendant’s house, where he, the defendant, is shown to have been that night after the killing, was competent to go to the jury for consideration by them, in connection with all the other evidence, as a circumstance tending to connect the defendant with the crime; and, of consequence that the court committed no error in refusing to exclude it.

The ruling of the court on this point is the subject-matter of the only exception reserved. This being without merit, the judgment must be affirmed; and as affirmed, the sheriff of Escambia county will execute the sentence of death imposed thereunder as prescribed by law, on Friday, July 7th, 1893.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State of Arizona v. Rosa Elene Becerra
366 P.3d 567 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2016)
Van Pelt v. State
202 So. 3d 707 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2015)
State v. Montgomery
968 So. 2d 543 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2011)
Tariq-Madyun v. State
59 So. 3d 744 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2010)
VanPelt v. State
74 So. 3d 32 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2009)
Gavin v. State
891 So. 2d 907 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2003)
Brooks v. People
975 P.2d 1105 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1999)
Commonwealth v. Michaux
520 A.2d 1177 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)
Roberts v. State
452 A.2d 1271 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1982)
Epperly v. Commonwealth
294 S.E.2d 882 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1982)
Terrell v. State
239 A.2d 128 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1968)
Buck v. State
1943 OK CR 65 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1943)
State v. Grba
196 Iowa 241 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1923)
Fox v. State
246 S.W. 863 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1923)
State v. . Yearwood
101 S.E. 513 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
Blair v. Commonwealth
204 S.W. 67 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1918)
White v. State
71 So. 452 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
People v. Pfanschmidt
262 Ill. 411 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1914)
Allen v. State
62 So. 971 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1913)
Commonwealth v. Hoffman
52 Pa. Super. 272 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 Ala. 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodge-v-state-ala-1893.