Murphy v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Murphy v. State

37 Ala. 142

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1861

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 37 Ala. 142 (Murphy 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

Murphy v. State, 37 Ala. 142 (Ala. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

A. J. WALKER, C. J.

By section 3585 of the Code it is provided; that, in' all trials for a capital or penitentiary offense, it is a good challenge for cause by the State, that-'the juror has a fixed opinion against cap-ital or penitentiary punishments. The statute makes the - specified cause a ground of- challenge by the State, but it cannot, without the most glaring perversion of its meaning,-, be understood as making it a ground of challenge by the Prisoner, or as.imposing upon the court the duty, ex mero moiu, of setting- aside a juror for the cause mentioned.The State mayt or-may. not; at its election, challenge a juror for the cause mentioned and the prisoner has no-right to complain-that the State forbears to "exercise the' right of challenge.

[2.] It is possible that some portion 'of the evidence of” Mrs. Keys, which the court admitted against the prisoner’s ■ objection,- did-not servé te explain-either the expression as ■ to which she was contradicted, or her motivesy'but it is • certain that much of -it Was so-connected with the pb-rticu-lar-'expression, as to render the part so connected competent evidence. This being the case, the court,- as w-e have often decided, committed no reversible error-in'overriding a general objection to the entire evidence.- In placing our decision, however, upon this ground, we must not be understood as affirming, that any portion"of the evidence was illegal. Upon that subject we express no opinion..

[3.] The counsel for the prisoner, though confessedly able, hav'e pointed out-nothing objectionable in the charge of the court; and if ¡there be any error in it, prejudicial to the prisoner, a careful examination has not enabled us to discover it. Construing the, charge in reference to the fact, indisputably established, that the killing was perpetrated With a deadly weapon, we think there can be no doubt that the instruction as to the presumption of malice was correct. — York's case, 9 Metcalf, 93; 3 Green. Ev. § 14.

Judgment affirmed.

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

A. J. WALKER, C. J.

By section 3585 of the Code it is provided; that, in' all trials for a capital or penitentiary offense, it is a good challenge for cause by the State, that-'the juror has a fixed opinion against cap-ital or penitentiary punishments. The statute makes the - specified cause a ground of- challenge by the State, but it cannot, without the most glaring perversion of its meaning,-, be understood as making it a ground of challenge by the Prisoner, or as.imposing upon the court the duty, ex mero moiu, of setting- aside a juror for the cause mentioned.The State mayt or-may. not; at its election, challenge a juror for the cause mentioned and the prisoner has no-right to complain-that the State forbears to "exercise the' right of challenge.

[2.] It is possible that some portion 'of the evidence of” Mrs. Keys, which the court admitted against the prisoner’s ■ objection,- did-not servé te explain-either the expression as ■ to which she was contradicted, or her motivesy'but it is • certain that much of -it Was so-connected with the pb-rticu-lar-'expression, as to render the part so connected competent evidence. This being the case, the court,- as w-e have often decided, committed no reversible error-in'overriding a general objection to the entire evidence.- In placing our decision, however, upon this ground, we must not be understood as affirming, that any portion"of the evidence was illegal. Upon that subject we express no opinion..

[3.] The counsel for the prisoner, though confessedly able, hav'e pointed out-nothing objectionable in the charge of the court; and if ¡there be any error in it, prejudicial to the prisoner, a careful examination has not enabled us to discover it. Construing the, charge in reference to the fact, indisputably established, that the killing was perpetrated With a deadly weapon, we think there can be no doubt that the instruction as to the presumption of malice was correct. — York's case, 9 Metcalf, 93; 3 Green. Ev. § 14.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Ala. 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-state-ala-1861.

Opinion

A. J. WALKER, C. J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack