Vickers v. State

11 Citing cases

  1. Long v. State

    44 So. 2d 775 (Ala. Crim. App. 1950)   Cited 3 times

    If there was error in admission in evidence of the trousers worn by the victim of the assault, it was cured by subsequent exclusion of the clothing. Vickers v. State, 18 Ala. App. 282, 91 So. 502; Id., 207 Ala. 715, 91 So. 924; Childs v. State, 55 Ala. 28. The coat worn by the victim was shown to be in the same condition as at the time of the assault, and was admissible, as tending to shed light on the issue of how the cutting took place. Teague v. State, 245 Ala. 339, 16 So.2d 877; Husch v. State, 211 Ala. 274, 100 So. 321; Hyche v. State, 22 Ala. App. 176, 113 So. 644; Pierce v. State, 28 Ala. App. 40, 178 So. 248. A general objection presents nothing for review unless the evidence sought is patently illegal.

  2. Vickers v. State

    91 So. 924 (Ala. 1921)

    THOMAS, J. Petition of John Vickers for certiorari to Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court rendered on the Appeal of John Vickers v. State, 18 Ala. App. 282, 91 So. 502, writ denied. McCLELLAN, SOMERVILLE, and MILLER, JJ., concur.

  3. White v. State

    498 So. 2d 396 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 3 times

    ". . . . "The more correct statement of law is that, 'the solicitor should not frame his questions so as to assume a fact not proven, but when the witness answers in such a way as to refute the assumption, it is error without injury.' Vickers v. State, 18 Ala. App. 282, 91 So. 502 (1921). In the case sub judice, the negative response did not refute the assumption; rather, it merely indicated that the witness had no knowledge of the fact that the D.A. was assuming.

  4. White v. State

    448 So. 2d 970 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984)   Cited 4 times

    The more correct statement of law is that, "The solicitor should not frame his questions so as to assume a fact not proven, but when the witness answers in such way as to refute the assumption, it is error without injury." Vickers v. State, 18 Ala. App. 282, 91 So. 502 (1921). In the case sub judice, the negative response did not refute the assumption; rather, it merely indicated that the witness had no knowledge of the fact the D.A. was assuming.

  5. Tally v. State

    304 So. 2d 275 (Ala. Crim. App. 1974)   Cited 3 times

    The prompt withdrawal of improper evidence and an instruction by the Court to give it no consideration cures the error of its admission. Johnson v. State, 15 Ala. App. 194, 72 So. 766; Vickers v. State, 18 Ala. App. 282, 91 So. 502; Morgan v. State, 20 Ala. App. 331, 102 So. 236. HARRIS, Judge.

  6. Freeman v. State

    74 So. 2d 513 (Ala. Crim. App. 1954)   Cited 14 times
    In Freeman v. State, 37 Ala. App. 623, 74 So.2d 513; cert. den. 261 Ala. 697, 74 So.2d 520, the court held that the statement by the solicitor, "The defendant will have a right to testify", was not a comment on his failure to do so.

    We are unable to tell from the record whether or not the place where the last shots were fired was within the curtilage of the home. If it was in a field, as the evidence seems to indicate, the charge in question was properly refused, because the accused was not relieved of the duty to retreat. Perry v. State, 94 Ala. 25, 10 So. 650; Vickers v. State, 18 Ala. App. 282, 91 So. 502; Valentine v. State, 19 Ala. App. 510, 98 So. 483; Nunn v. State, 19 Ala. App. 619, 99 So. 738; Dykes v. State, 34 Ala. App. 216, 39 So.2d 21. Charges 11 and 29 are practically in duplicate.

  7. Williams v. State

    163 So. 668 (Ala. Crim. App. 1935)   Cited 9 times

    In the companion case of Lawson Williams v. State, 163 So. 663, this court, in dealing with this question, said: "We have not been cited to, nor do we know of, any law to support the proposition that the fact that one happens to be on his own land at the time of a difficulty, thereby secures to himself all the rights deducible from the principle which is illustrated by the maxim, that every man's house is his castle and that he has a right to stand at its portals and defend himself against any and all attacks. Nor does the fact that a man is on his own land relieve him of the duty to retreat and flee, if he can do so without increasing his own peril, rather than to take the life of an adversary. Carter v. State, 82 Ala. 13, 2 So. 766; Lee v. State, 92 Ala. 15, 9 So. 407, 25 Am. St. Rep. 17; Vickers v. State, 18 Ala. App. 282, 91 So. 502."

  8. Williams v. State

    163 So. 663 (Ala. Crim. App. 1935)   Cited 26 times
    In Williams v. State, 26 Ala. App. 531, 163 So. 663, at page 664, it was said: "When declaration is reduced to writing, read over to and approved by declarant, document becomes primary evidence, and parol proof thereof will not be received without first accounting for written document; but in order for document to become primary evidence it must appear to be the intelligent act of declarant."

    We have not been cited to, nor do we know of, any law to support the proposition that the fact that one happens to be on his own land at the time of a difficulty thereby secures to himself all the rights deducible from the principle which is illustrated by the maxim that every man's house is his castle and that he has a right to stand at its portals and defend himself against any and all attacks. Nor does the fact that a man is on his own land relieve him of the duty to retreat and flee, if he can do so without increasing his own peril, rather than to take the life of an adversary. Carter v. State, 82 Ala. 13, 2 So. 766; Lee v. State, 92 Ala. 15, 9 So. 407, 25 Am. St. Rep. 17; Vickers v. State, 18 Ala. App. 282, 91 So. 502. The difficulty resulting in this homicide grew out of a controversy over a land line, and the stopping up of a terrace on the lands of defendant, or on the strips of land in dispute.

  9. McNutt v. State

    23 Ala. App. 43 (Ala. Crim. App. 1929)   Cited 11 times

    2 Words and Phrases, First Series, 1798, 1799; State v. Twitty, 2 N.C. 102; Ivey v. State, 61 Ala. 58; People v. Gedney, 10 Hun (N.Y.) 151; Derrickson v. Edwards, 29 N.J. Law, 468, 80 Am. Dec. 220; Washington v. State, 82 Ala. 31, 2 So. 356; State v. Hecox, 83 Mo. 531; State v. Shaw, 31 Me. 523; Cook v. State, 83 Ala. 62, 3 So. 849, 3 Am. St. Rep. 688; 13 R. C. L. 830; Palmer v. State, 9 Wyo. 40, 59 P. 793, 87 Am. St. Rep. 910; Lee v. State, 92 Ala. 15, 9 So. 407, 25 Am. St. Rep. 17; State v. Brooks, 79 S.C. 144, 60 S.E. 518, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 483, 128 Am. St. Rep. 836, 15 Ann. Cas. 49; Beard v. U.S., 158 U.S. 550, 15 S.Ct. 962, 39 L.Ed. 1086. At least under the facts in this case, the trial court was in error in not submitting the question of curtilage to the jury. Madry v. State, 201 Ala. 512, 78 So. 866; Caldwell v. State, 203 Ala. 412, 84 So. 272; Vickers v. State, 18 Ala. App. 282, 91 So. 502; Walker v. State, 205 Ala. 197, 87 So. 833; Overstreet v. State, 46 Ala. 30; Washington v. State, 82 Ala. 31, 2 So. 356; Com. v. Barney, 10 Cush (Mass.) 487; State v. Shaw, supra. Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., J. W. Brassell, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John R. Sample, Circuit Solicitor, of Hartselle, for the State.

  10. Melton v. State

    109 So. 114 (Ala. Crim. App. 1926)   Cited 16 times

    The form of the questions asked had the effect of getting into the evidence the fact that defendant had shot his brother, and that at another time defendant had been in possession of prohibited liquors. The actions of the court in overruling the objections were errors. Vickers v. State, 18 Ala. App. 282, 91 So. 502; Conway v. State, 18 Ala. App. 156, 90 So. 46; Lowery v. State, ante, p. 352, 108 So. 351. There is a line of cases which hold that, where motion to exclude the answer to an illegal question is not made, the error of the court in overruling the objection to the question is waived.