Jordon v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Jordon v. State

119 So. 597, 22 Ala. App. 655, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 10

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 1929

Docket3 Div. 588.

StatusPublished

This text of 119 So. 597 (Jordon 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

Jordon v. State, 119 So. 597, 22 Ala. App. 655, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 10 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced to perform hard labor for the county of Conecuh for the term of one year.

There is nothing presented by the record worthy of a discussion by us. John Henry Smith, the deceased, was riding in an auto-' mobile, at night. The car in which he was riding passed a car, occupied by appellant and others. In passing, deceased’s car struck, or rubbed against, the ,one occupied by appellant, whereupon, according to the state’s testimony, appellant deliberately fired his pistol at or towards the car occupied by the deceased ; a bullet from one of the shots striking deceased and killing him. Appellant’s testimony was to the effect that another, not on trial, fired the shot which killed the deceased. The issues were simple, and no questions arise out of the taking of testimony.

The court’s oral charge, in connection with the numerous written charges given at appellant’s request, cover correctly every essential phase of the applicable law. This was sufficient reason for refusing the written charges appearing in the record as having been asked by and refused to appellant.

The trial appears to have been, in all its phases, regularly and legally conducted. Appellant was fairly convicted, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced to perform hard labor for the county of Conecuh for the term of one year.

There is nothing presented by the record worthy of a discussion by us. John Henry Smith, the deceased, was riding in an auto-' mobile, at night. The car in which he was riding passed a car, occupied by appellant and others. In passing, deceased’s car struck, or rubbed against, the ,one occupied by appellant, whereupon, according to the state’s testimony, appellant deliberately fired his pistol at or towards the car occupied by the deceased ; a bullet from one of the shots striking deceased and killing him. Appellant’s testimony was to the effect that another, not on trial, fired the shot which killed the deceased. The issues were simple, and no questions arise out of the taking of testimony.

The court’s oral charge, in connection with the numerous written charges given at appellant’s request, cover correctly every essential phase of the applicable law. This was sufficient reason for refusing the written charges appearing in the record as having been asked by and refused to appellant.

The trial appears to have been, in all its phases, regularly and legally conducted. Appellant was fairly convicted, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 So. 597, 22 Ala. App. 655, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordon-v-state-alactapp-1929.