Mathews v. State

136 Ala. 47
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1902·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

DOWDELL, J.

There was no error in overruling the defendant’s objection to the testimony of the witness Frank McGee as to statements made by the defen[50] dant shortly after the. homicide. It was made clearly to appear that no threats or promises were made to induce the statement.

Written charge 1 is conceded by appellant’s counsel to he incomplete and defective.

Charge 2 pretermits the element of the honest belief of ¡the defendant in the imminency of the peril, and for this reason if no other was bad.

Charge 3 pretermits one or more of the constituents elements of self-defense and was, therefore, properly refused. Similar charges have, often been condemned by this court. — Gilmore v. State, 126 Ala. 20; Miller v. State, 107 Ala. 45; Wilkins v. State, 98 Ala. 6, and authorities cited in these cases.

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

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

Mathews v. State, 136 Ala. 47 (Ala. 1902).

136 Ala. 47 (Mathews v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Taylor v. State
20 So. 2d 239 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1944)
Sanders v. State
11 So. 2d 740 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1943)
Bragg v. State
183 So. 682 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
Turner v. State
49 So. 828 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)
Parker v. State
45 So. 248 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1907)
Plant v. State
140 Ala. 52 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1903)