Russell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Russell v. State

239 So. 2d 902, 46 Ala. App. 230, 1970 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 407

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedOctober 6, 1970

Docket7 Div. 51

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 239 So. 2d 902 (Russell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Russell v. State, 239 So. 2d 902, 46 Ala. App. 230, 1970 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 407 (Ala. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

CATES, Judge.

Murder second degree: ten years.

I

Counsel for Russell (who was not his lawyer at the trial) argues as his first point in brief:

“ * * * All that has been shown was testimony by the * '* * widow of the deceased that her husband was shot and that she observed blood on his clothing and that she went to the hospital with him and that he died some seven days after the alleged shooting. It would appear that the State at least would have introduced into evidence a death certificate or some testimony by the Coroner or a physician or even the hospital records to show the cause of death. If the alleged wound inflicted by the Defendant did result in the death, then this could have been easily shown and would not have inconvenienced the State too much.”

We are not called on to decide this point because: (1) there was no motion to exclude the State’s proof made before the defense presented its witnesses; (2) there was no request in writing for the affirmative charge for the defendant; and (3) there was no motion for a new trial. Hence, the trial judge was never put to ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence. Alexander v. State, 44 Ala.App. 143, 204 So.2d 486; Johnson v. State, 282 Ala. 584, 213 So.2d 644; Smith v. State, 45 Ala.App. 63, 223 So.2d 605.

II

Complaint is made of the trial judge’s rulings on questions designed to elicit the deceased’s repute for aggressiveness, bloodthirstiness and the like. These questions were premature because at that stage of the trial no evidence of self-defense had been adduced. Wright v. State, 252 Ala. 46, 39 So.2d 395. See also Teague v. State, 120 Ala. 309, 25 So. 209.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

CATES, Judge.

Murder second degree: ten years.

I

Counsel for Russell (who was not his lawyer at the trial) argues as his first point in brief:

“ * * * All that has been shown was testimony by the * '* * widow of the deceased that her husband was shot and that she observed blood on his clothing and that she went to the hospital with him and that he died some seven days after the alleged shooting. It would appear that the State at least would have introduced into evidence a death certificate or some testimony by the Coroner or a physician or even the hospital records to show the cause of death. If the alleged wound inflicted by the Defendant did result in the death, then this could have been easily shown and would not have inconvenienced the State too much.”

We are not called on to decide this point because: (1) there was no motion to exclude the State’s proof made before the defense presented its witnesses; (2) there was no request in writing for the affirmative charge for the defendant; and (3) there was no motion for a new trial. Hence, the trial judge was never put to ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence. Alexander v. State, 44 Ala.App. 143, 204 So.2d 486; Johnson v. State, 282 Ala. 584, 213 So.2d 644; Smith v. State, 45 Ala.App. 63, 223 So.2d 605.

II

Complaint is made of the trial judge’s rulings on questions designed to elicit the deceased’s repute for aggressiveness, bloodthirstiness and the like. These questions were premature because at that stage of the trial no evidence of self-defense had been adduced. Wright v. State, 252 Ala. 46, 39 So.2d 395. See also Teague v. State, 120 Ala. 309, 25 So. 209.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 So. 2d 902, 46 Ala. App. 230, 1970 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-state-alacrimapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack