Lang v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Lang v. State

52 So. 340, 166 Ala. 22, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 362

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 14, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 So. 340 (Lang 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

Lang v. State, 52 So. 340, 166 Ala. 22, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 362 (Ala. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, J.

The witness Clark testified that the deceased was not only conscious, but knew he was going to die, and told him that “he was killed and bound to die.” The witness did not encourage him, but told him he thought he would die. We think a sufficient predicate was laid for the admission of the dying declaration.—Clark v. The State, 105 Ala. 91, 17 South. 37, and cases cited. It is true, there was evidence, subsequently introduced by the defendant, tending to contradict Clark as to the condition of the deceased, and tending to show that he did not charge the defendant with shooting him, but this did not affect the admissibility of the evidence, but went to its credibility, and which was a question for the jury.

[24]*24Charge R, refused to the defendant, was covered by given charge B. Indeed, they are exactly alike, except for the use of the word ‘case” in one in place of the word “instance” in the other.

Charge, S refused the defendant, if not otherwise bad, was involved and confusing.

There was no error in giving the state’s requested charges.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Simpson and Sayre, JJ., concur.

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

ANDERSON, J.

The witness Clark testified that the deceased was not only conscious, but knew he was going to die, and told him that “he was killed and bound to die.” The witness did not encourage him, but told him he thought he would die. We think a sufficient predicate was laid for the admission of the dying declaration.—Clark v. The State, 105 Ala. 91, 17 South. 37, and cases cited. It is true, there was evidence, subsequently introduced by the defendant, tending to contradict Clark as to the condition of the deceased, and tending to show that he did not charge the defendant with shooting him, but this did not affect the admissibility of the evidence, but went to its credibility, and which was a question for the jury.

[24]*24Charge R, refused to the defendant, was covered by given charge B. Indeed, they are exactly alike, except for the use of the word ‘case” in one in place of the word “instance” in the other.

Charge, S refused the defendant, if not otherwise bad, was involved and confusing.

There was no error in giving the state’s requested charges.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Simpson and Sayre, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 So. 340, 166 Ala. 22, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lang-v-state-ala-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack