Hutcherson v. State

50 So. 1027, 165 Ala. 16, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 297
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 16, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 50 So. 1027 (Hutcherson 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
Hutcherson v. State, 50 So. 1027, 165 Ala. 16, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 297 (Ala. 1909).

Opinion

McGLELLAN, J.

— The defendant was adjudged guilty of murder (second degree) of her husband; the tragedy taking place within their common abode. The justification set up was self-defense. There was evidence tending to support this defense.

In argument to the jury, the representative of the state said: “Gentlemen of the jury, why didn’t the defendant bring Dr. Mason here, and show you by him that he was doctoring her?” Seasonable objection and motion to exclude this statement were overruled. It appears that the defendant testified to Dr. Mason’s professional attendance upon her, and that she was sick at the time of the killing. From the bill it appears that Dr. Mason’s place of residence wás Excel, Ala. It does not appear that this physician was not as accessible to the prosecution as to the defense. Under such circumstances as this record shows, the solicitor’s quoted statement was improper, and should have been disallowed. — Crawford v. State, 112 Ala. 1, 23, 21 South. 214; Bates v. Morris, 101 Ala. 282; Brock v. State, 123 Ala. 24, 26 South. 329.

[18]*18The fact, if so, that deceased had, on former occasions, beat her, was properly excluded.

,The part of tbe oral charge excepted to was erroneous.

Charge 1, given for tbe defendant, announced the lav-applicable to the nonduty of tbe defendant to retreat under tbe circumstances hypothesized.

For tbe error first indicated, tbe judgment is reversed, and tbe cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

United States v. Bennie L. Peterson
483 F.2d 1222 (D.C. Circuit, 1973)
State v. Hamric
151 S.E.2d 252 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1966)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Larisey
112 So. 2d 203 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1959)
Harbin v. State
82 So. 2d 565 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1955)
State v. Grantham
77 S.E.2d 291 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1953)
State v. Goldberg
79 A.2d 702 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1951)
Jarrell v. State
36 So. 2d 336 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1948)
Mills v. State
104 So. 889 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1925)
McDaniel v. State
102 So. 788 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)
Coosa Portland Cement Co. v. Crankfield
80 So. 451 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Jackson v. State
69 So. 139 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
Manley v. Birmingham Ry. L. & P. Co.
68 So. 60 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
Forman v. State
67 So. 583 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 So. 1027, 165 Ala. 16, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutcherson-v-state-ala-1909.