(Emphasis added.) In Roper v. State, 25 Ala. App. 397, 147 So. 201 (1933), the admission of details of a former difficulty between the assaulted party and the son of the accused, out of the accused's presence, was held to be error. The court observed the following:
Threats by a defendant to kill or injure one person are not admissible in evidence on indictment charging the murder of another person. State v. McHamilton, 128 La. 498, 54 So. 971; Bird v. United States, 180 U.S. 356, 21 S.Ct. 403, 45 L.Ed. 570; George v. State, 145 Ala. 41, 40 So. 961, 117 Am.St.Rep. 17; 30 C.J. 191, § 420; Roper v. State, 25 Ala. App. 397, 147 So. 201; Stover v. State, 25 Ala. App. 222, 143 So. 239, 241; Duncan v. State, 22 Ala. App. 382, 115 So. 856; Naler v. State, 25 Ala. App. 486, 148 So. 880, 881; Clemmons v. State, 18 Ala. App. 650, 94 So. 245; Shipman v. State, 23 Ala. App. 82, 121 So. 503; Ratliff v. State, 19 Ala. App. 505, 98 So. 493; State v. Abercrombie, 130 S.C. 358, 126 S.E. 142; Lawrence v. State, 128 Tex. Cr.R. 416, 82 S.W.2d 647; Fugate v. Com., 202 Ky. 509, 260 S.W. 338; Garrison v. Com., 236 Ky. 706, 33 S.W.2d 698, 699; Stokes v. State, 17 Ala. App. 27, 81 So. 363. In a prosecution for murder it is error to allow a witness to go into details of a previous difficulty between the defendant and the deceased, or the defendant and a third person.
Lovejoy v. State, 33 Ala. App. 414, 34 So.2d 692; Id., 250 Ala. 409, 34 So.2d 700; Dupree v. State, 33 Ala. 380, 73 Am.Dec. 422; Smith v. State, 197 Ala. 193, 72 So. 316; Montgomery v. State, 17 Ala. App. 469, 86 So. 132; Id., 204 Ala. 389, 85 So. 785. Testimony of a difficulty between deceased and a third person prior to the killing was properly rejected. Carter v. State, 219 Ala. 670, 123 So. 50; Maxwell v. State, 220 Ala. 419, 125 So. 682; Roper v. State, 25 Ala. App. 397, 147 So. 201. A trial court may reject a juror who states that he would not give the death penalty on circumstantial evidence. Williams v. State, 241 Ala. 348, 2 So.2d 423; Waller v. State, 40 Ala. 325. Error cannot be predicated on refusal to permit counsel to read from law books to the jury.
It has further been held by this court in a prosecution for assault and battery that evidence of the fact of a former difficulty, between the parties, but not details thereof, are admissible as bearing on the question of intent. Cameron v. State, 24 Ala. App. 438, 136 So. 418; Roper v. State, 25 Ala. App. 397, 147 So. 201. We think the ruling of the court admitting the written statement was free of error.
Code 1940, Tit. 13, §§ 114, 115; Tit. 7, § 249; McNutt v. State, 23 Ala. App. 43, 121 So. 432; Shiver v. State, 13 Ala. App. 258, 69 So. 238; Timmerman v. Martin, 234 Ala. 622, 176 So. 198; Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Street, 228 Ala. 667, 154 So. 816. Admission of physical condition of appellant at time of alleged assault or short time thereafter is not error where defense is not guilty by reason of insanity. Roper v. State, 25 Ala. App. 397, 147 So. 201; Brooke v. State, 155 Ala. 78, 46 So. 491; Winford v. State, 16 Ala. App. 143, 75 So. 819. It was not error to allow state to prove inconsistent or contradictory statements of defendant made after commission of offense where statements related to or explained crime and were completely voluntary. Hill v. State, 194 Ala. 11, 69 So. 941, 2 A.L.R. 509; Jones v. State, 181 Ala. 63, 61 So. 434.
We entertain the view that the details of this prior disagreement, at which appellant was not present and in no way participated, are res inter alios. Morell v. State, 18 Ala. App. 243, 91 So. 501; Carter v. State, 219 Ala. 670, 123 So. 50; Roper v. State, 25 Ala. App. 397, 147 So. 201. Let it be understood we are not here holding that the privilege of free and full examination to determine interest, bias, ill will, etc., of witnesses who testify should be forbidden or abridged.