Pitts v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Shiver v. State

    49 Ala. App. 615 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 10 times

    Manslaughter in the second degree is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being, without malice and without intent to kill, but accidentally committed while the accused was doing an unlawful act amounting to a misdemeanor or doing a lawful act in a grossly negligent or improper manner. Touchstone v. State, 42 Ala. App. 141, 155 So.2d 349; Pitts v. State, 40 Ala. App. 702, 122 So.2d 542. A question on direct examination of a witness, including a party witness, asking for his intent, motive, reason or belief, is not permissible even though such intent, etc., is a material element to be proven.

  2. Thornton v. State

    369 So. 2d 63 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979)   Cited 14 times

    Manslaughter in the second degree has been defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice and without intent to kill or inflict injury resulting in death, but accidentally committed while the accused was doing an unlawful act amounting to a misdemeanor, or doing a lawful act in a grossly negligent or improper manner. Touchstone v. State, 42 Ala. App. 141, 155 So.2d 349 (1963); Pitts v. State, 40 Ala. App. 702, 122 So.2d 542 (1960); see also § 13-1-90, Code of Alabama (1975). There was no evidence presented which would tend to support a theory of the case consistent with manslaughter in the second degree.

  3. McDade v. State

    49 Ala. App. 533 (Ala. Crim. App. 1972)   Cited 6 times

    Whether evidence is admissible because of remoteness is largely within the trial court's discretion. Pitts v. State, 40 Ala. App. 702, 122 So.2d 542; Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 115 So.2d 287. Admission of hair samples into evidence is not testimonial or communicative evidence and does not violate defendant's right against self-incrimination. Hubbard v. State, 283 Ala. 183, 215 So.2d 261. Objection to evidence must be made when the evidence is offered. Walker v. State, 265 Ala. 233, 90 So.2d 221.

  4. Braden v. State

    45 Ala. App. 186 (Ala. Crim. App. 1969)   Cited 6 times

    Objects at the scene are generally relevant and remoteness in time from the res gestae is an objection going to weight and not legality. Smitherman v. State, 33 Ala. App. 316, 33 So.2d 396; Busbee v. State, 36 Ala. App. 701, 63 So.2d 290 (3); West v. State, 37 Ala. App. 125, 65 So.2d 203; Petty v. State, 40 Ala. App. 151, 110 So.2d 319; Dorch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 115 So.2d 287; Pitts v. State, 40 Ala. App. 702, 122 So.2d 542; Douglas v. State, 42 Ala. App. 314, 163 So.2d 477(23); McElroy, Evidence, (2d Ed.) § 21.01(3). We have reviewed this record under Code 1940, T. 15, § 389 and consider the judgment below should be

  5. Douglas v. State

    42 Ala. App. 314 (Ala. Crim. App. 1963)   Cited 40 times

    Remoteness of time and also of place from the res gestae is a matter left to the jury if there is other relevance in a circumstance. Busbee v. State, 36 Ala. App. 701, 63 So.2d 290; Petty v. State, 40 Ala. App. 151, 110 So.2d 319; Dortch v. State, 40 Ala. App. 475, 115 So.2d 287; Pitts v. State, 40 Ala. App. 702, 122 So.2d 542. See also Mott v. State, 40 Ala. App. 144, 109 So.2d 309, and McElroy, Evidence (2d Ed.), Vol. 1, § 21.01 (3), pp. 16-17.