Marable v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Marable v. State

177 So. 880, 235 Ala. 154, 1937 Ala. LEXIS 342

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 26, 1937

Docket5 Div. 255.

StatusPublished

This text of 177 So. 880 (Marable 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

Marable v. State, 177 So. 880, 235 Ala. 154, 1937 Ala. LEXIS 342 (Ala. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

GARDNER, Justice.

On former appeal (Marable v. State, 229 Ala. 435, 157 So. 861), this court concluded, ■ and so stated, that the evidence, though circumstantial, sufficed for a submission to the jury of the question of defendant’s guilt in the murder of his wife. And in this conclusion, the court considered as relevant, and tending in some degree to show motive, the evidence of statements made by defendant, just previous to his marriage, that he did not love the woman, but was marrying her for her money, and to help care for his children.

Counsel for defendant, in large part, rest their argument i for a reversal *155 upon the denial of the motion for a new trial, insisting that the evidence, wholly circumstantial, is too uncertain and inconclusive upon which to base a verdict of guilt.

True, the State’s case rests entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and it may he conceded that its consideration here in record form leaves something to be desired to dispel all doubt as to defendant’s guilt. But it was clearly sufficient for the jury’s .consideration, and two juries of his county have pronounced their conviction of his guilt.

We will not here discuss the proof. It has been read with great care and with due regard to the responsibility _ resting upon us. We find it rises far’above any mere matter of speculation or conjecture (Jones v. State, 90 Ala. 628, 8 So. 383, 24 Am.St.Rep. 850), and upon mature deliberation the conclusion is that this court is not justified in disturbing the verdict rendered.

We have treated the only questions considered by counsel of any real importance, but, mifidful of our duty in such cases, we have examined all other matters in the record, and find nothing calling for further discussion.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment will be accordingly here affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BOULDIN ' and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

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

GARDNER, Justice.

On former appeal (Marable v. State, 229 Ala. 435, 157 So. 861), this court concluded, ■ and so stated, that the evidence, though circumstantial, sufficed for a submission to the jury of the question of defendant’s guilt in the murder of his wife. And in this conclusion, the court considered as relevant, and tending in some degree to show motive, the evidence of statements made by defendant, just previous to his marriage, that he did not love the woman, but was marrying her for her money, and to help care for his children.

Counsel for defendant, in large part, rest their argument i for a reversal *155 upon the denial of the motion for a new trial, insisting that the evidence, wholly circumstantial, is too uncertain and inconclusive upon which to base a verdict of guilt.

True, the State’s case rests entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and it may he conceded that its consideration here in record form leaves something to be desired to dispel all doubt as to defendant’s guilt. But it was clearly sufficient for the jury’s .consideration, and two juries of his county have pronounced their conviction of his guilt.

We will not here discuss the proof. It has been read with great care and with due regard to the responsibility _ resting upon us. We find it rises far’above any mere matter of speculation or conjecture (Jones v. State, 90 Ala. 628, 8 So. 383, 24 Am.St.Rep. 850), and upon mature deliberation the conclusion is that this court is not justified in disturbing the verdict rendered.

We have treated the only questions considered by counsel of any real importance, but, mifidful of our duty in such cases, we have examined all other matters in the record, and find nothing calling for further discussion.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment will be accordingly here affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BOULDIN ' and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 So. 880, 235 Ala. 154, 1937 Ala. LEXIS 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marable-v-state-ala-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack