Opinion
6 Div. 430.
June 13, 1946.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John C. Morrow, Judge.
Wm. Conway, of Birmingham, for appellant.
On the trial for one offense evidence of other offenses is not admissible. Crow v. State, 28 Ala. App. 319, 183 So. 897; Gallman v. State, 29 Ala. App. 264, 195 So. 768; Smith v. State, 247 Ala. 182, 23 So.2d 516; Robinson v. State, 5 Ala. App. 45, 59 So. 321; Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 313; Mitchell v. State, 22 Ala. App. 300, 115 So. 149; 6 Ala.Dig., Crim.Law, § 369(1). Admission of irrelevant evidence is error which will work a reversal unless the record clearly shows that no injury could have resulted, and this though the appellate court may not be able to see that injury resulted from the error. Diggs v. State, 49 Ala. 311; Jackson v. State, 52 Ala. 305; Williams v. State, 83 Ala. 16, 3 So. 616; Ridgell v. State, 1 Ala. App. 94, 55 So. 327; Phillips v. State, 3 Ala. App. 218, 57 So. 1033; Watson v. State, 8 Ala. App. 414, 62 So. 997; Powe v. State, 19 Ala. App. 215, 96 So. 370. Prosecutors should not endeavor, wilfully, knowingly and insistently to inject into a case matters wholly illegal and inadmissible in order to fasten a conviction on a person charged with a criminal offense. 6 Ala.Dig., Crim.Law, § 713; Moore v. State, 30 Ala. App. 552, 9 So.2d 146; Simon v. State, 181 Ala. 90, 61 So. 801; Bozeman v. State, 25 Ala. App. 281, 145 So. 165; Watts v. Espy, 211 Ala. 502, 101 So. 106. Charges asserting correct propositions of law applicable to the case should be given.
Wm. N. McQueen, Atty. Gen., and Williard W. Livingston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Refusal of charges fully and fairly covered in oral charge is not error. Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 273; Robinson v. State, 243 Ala. 684, 11 So.2d 732; Sanders v. State, 243 Ala. 691, 11 So.2d 740; Morgan v. State, 28 Ala. App. 150, 180 So. 716. Evidence of criminal offenses other than one for which accused is tried is admissible where such evidence may throw light on motive, intent, scienter or identity. Wilkins v. State, 29 Ala. App. 349, 197 So. 75; Daniels v. State, 243 Ala. 675, 11 So.2d 756; Robinson v. State, 243 Ala. 684, 11 So.2d 732; Williams v. State, 245 Ala. 32, 15 So.2d 572; Jackson v. State, 229 Ala. 48, 155 So. 581; Vincent v. State, 231 Ala. 657, 165 So. 844. Antecedent circumstances so connected with a homicide as to shed light on the transaction, to show defendant's conduct, and defendant's connection therewith, are admissible. Harden v. State, 211 Ala. 656, 101 So. 442; Sanders v. State, 242 Ala. 535, 7 So.2d 483; Ellis v. State, 244 Ala. 79, 11 So.2d 861. Evidence that defendant had a business transaction after the homicide was admissible on the issue of insanity. 2 Warren on Homicide, 703; Kilpatrick v. State, 213 Ala. 358, 104 So. 656.
The defendant was convicted of wife murder. His plea was not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
He had been drinking and a few minutes after his arrival home that evening he shot and killed his young wife with a shotgun. He contended the shooting was accidental. The State was permitted to prove by the witness, Gardner, that on their way home the defendant had said that he was "a woman hater," that he had "slapped hell out of one woman that day" and that they "had no business with those young wives." This testimony was relevant as bearing on motive and intent. Daniels v. State, 243 Ala. 675, 11 So.2d 756; Spicer v. State, 188 Ala. 9, 65 So. 972; Johnson v. State, 17 Ala. 618, 624; Campbell v. State, 23 Ala. 44, 45; Liles v. State, 30 Ala. 24, 68 Am.Dec. 108.
Evidence which is material to some issue in the cause and tends to elucidate it is admissible. Snead v. State, 243 Ala. 23, 8 So.2d 269, and cases cited; Spicer v. State, supra; McAdory v. State, 62 Ala. 154, 159.
The principle comprehends the right of the State to adduce evidence to controvert a material aspect of the defendant's evidence when relevant to the issue, even though such evidence tends to show other acts and crimes of the defendant. Snead v. State, supra; Wilkins v. State, 29 Ala. App. 349, 197 So. 75; Lee v. State, 31 Ala. App. 91, 13 So.2d 583(19).
Motive and intent were material issues in the case and in fact the only aspect of the case which presented a substantial conflict in the evidence. The statements of the accused, aforesaid, therefore, shortly before the commission of the alleged crime were relevant to this issue and shed light on the inquiry and tended to negative the defendant's claim and sustained the theory of the State that the shooting was intentional.
The following cases also discuss the principle: Daniels v. State, supra; Spicer v. State, supra; Robinson v. State, 243 Ala. 684, 11 So.2d 732; Johnson v. State, 242 Ala. 278, 5 So.2d 632; Jackson v. State, 229 Ala. 48, 155 So. 581.
Some question was raised as to the admissibility of the testimony that while the defendant was in jail and soon after the fatal affray, the witness transacted business with him and bought his interest in the crop. This evidence, of course, was admissible under the defendant's plea of insanity and tended to shed light on his mental condition.
On the issue of insanity, proof of the acts, conduct and declarations of the accused is not confined to those at the time of the crime, but includes previous and subsequent ones, as well, which have a tendency to shed light on his state of mind when the act was committed. Alabama Southern Digest, Criminal Law, Insanity, 354.
Charge O-1 was abstract, the evidence furnishing no hypothesis for such an instruction.
Charge N-2 was fully covered in the court's oral charge and no prejudicial error resulted from its refusal.
There was no error in the refusal of the other written charges.
We find no reversible error and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GARDNER, C. J., and BROWN and LIVINGSTON, JJ., concur.