Lawhon v. State

12 Citing cases

  1. Holman v. Lawhon

    362 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1966)

    The District Court took judicial notice of this fact in its opinion in the case at bar. Appellee's conviction by a jury in the state circuit court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Alabama in Lawhon, et al. v. State, (1962) 41 Ala. App. 577, 141 So.2d 205. At a pretrial hearing it was determined that appellee had either exhausted or validly attempted to exhaust his state remedies in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and further, that the case would be submitted upon appellant's responsive pleadings and the several attached exhibits. One of the exhibits is an excerpted transcript from the state court trial, partially quoted above herein, which sufficiently sets forth what transpired with respect to the witness Yarbrough. There is no factual dispute as to what transpired in the state court.

  2. Steele v. State

    389 So. 2d 591 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)   Cited 6 times

    It is generally recognized in Alabama that the State must prove intent and malice in order for a defendant to be guilty of assault with intent to murder. Crear v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 376 So.2d 778, cert. denied, Ala., 376 So.2d 788 (1979); Coleman v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 373 So.2d 1254 (1979); Lawhon v. State, 41 Ala. App. 577, 141 So.2d 205 (1962). Both malice and intent to murder may be inferred by the jury from the character of the assault, the use of a deadly weapon, and other attendant circumstances.

  3. Savage v. State

    380 So. 2d 375 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)   Cited 4 times

    II The elements of the offense of assault with intent to murder are set out in Lawhon v. State, 41 Ala. App. 577, 141 So.2d 205. A conviction for this offense is authorized if the evidence shows an assault with intent to take life under circumstances which would have constituted murder if death had resulted. Hamm v. State, 56 Ala. App. 632, 324 So.2d 345. The intent to take life is an essential element of the offense.

  4. Crear v. State

    376 So. 2d 778 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979)   Cited 2 times

    The principle is well established that an assault with intent to murder requires proof that there was an assault with intent to murder the alleged victim. Lawhon v. State, 41 Ala. App. 577, 141 So.2d 205 (1962). There is no requirement, however, that this element of the crime be conclusively established by the evidence.

  5. Coleman v. State

    373 So. 2d 1254 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979)   Cited 14 times

    Pursuant to § 13-1-46, Code of Ala. 1975, the offense consists of (1) an assault and (2) an intent to murder the named victim. Lawhon v. State, 41 Ala. App. 577, 141 So.2d 205 (1962). Consequently, the offense requires proof of specific intent to murder the person named in the indictment.

  6. Helton v. State

    372 So. 2d 390 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979)   Cited 19 times
    In Helton the defendant was convicted of rassault with intent to murder for repeatedly kicking the victim in the face with his boot-clad foot. Helton, 372 So.2d at 391.

    The elements of the offense of assault with intent to murder are (1) an assault and (2) an intent to murder. Lawhon v. State, 41 Ala. App. 577, 141 So.2d 205 (1962). An accused may be guilty of assault with intent to murder where no deadly weapon was used, Hall v. State, 348 So.2d 870 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Hall, 348 So.2d 875 (Ala. 1977); Bowen v. State, 32 Ala. App. 357, 26 So.2d 205 (1946), or where the accused only used his fists as malice may be inferred from the character of the assault. Sparks v. State, 261 Ala. 2, 75 So.2d 103 (1954); Kirkland v. State, 21 Ala. App. 348, 108 So. 262 (1926).

  7. Williams v. State

    369 So. 2d 910 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979)   Cited 9 times

    III Under the facts in this case as well as the elements of the offense of assault with intent to murder outlined in Lawhon v. State, 41 Ala. App. 577, 141 So.2d 205, we find that the question of appellant's guilt was properly submitted to the jury. Testimony by Jack Alexander indicated that the appellant fired the shot at Mrs.

  8. Thompson v. State

    376 So. 2d 761 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979)   Cited 4 times

    The elements of the offense of assault with intent to murder are: (1) an assault and (2) an intent to murder. Lawhon v. State, 41 Ala. App. 577, 141 So.2d 205. Both intent and malice can be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon. Roberts v. State, 49 Ala. App. 729, 275 So.2d 709.

  9. Hall v. State

    348 So. 2d 870 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)   Cited 21 times
    In Hall, a juror's son and one Johnny Snow testified at the hearing on a motion for new trial that the juror had told his son that he (the juror) did not like appellant, that appellant's father owed him money, and that he was going to find appellant guilty. The juror testified in rebuttal.

    The statute does not create the offense or the constituents of the offense, it merely elevates the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony. Smith v. State, 88 Ala. 23, 7 So. 103 (1890); Lawhon v. State, 41 Ala. App. 577, 141 So.2d 205 (1962). This Court has held a written charge to be improper which stated that an accused could not be convicted of an assault with intent to murder if he used only his fists in the difficulty.

  10. Childress v. State

    344 So. 2d 799 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)   Cited 3 times

    But apparently the case holds the same principle of law would apply. In the case of Lawhon, Yarbrough and Yarbrough v. State, 41 Ala. App. 577, 141 So.2d 205, appears the following: "The proof of the mens rea must show (1) intent to kill the named victim and (2) malice."