TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Woods v. State

Woods v. State.

Woods v. State, 101 So. 314 (Ala. Ct. App. 1924)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Alabama Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
August 19, 1924
Docket
No. 8 Div. 161.
Judges
Samford
Citations
101 So. 31420 Ala. App. 2001924 Ala. App. LEXIS 235

Opinion of the Court — Samford

SAMFORD, J.

The homicide in this ease was committed in a mutual rencontre, and sufficient evidence ,was adduced on the part of defendant to authorize the jury to pass upon the plea of self-defense, as to which the evidence was conflicting. Where this is the case, one of the vital questions is as to who provoked or brought on the difficulty. Thornton v. State, 18 Ala. App. 225 , 90 South. 66 .

As bearing on this question, threats made by the dead man against the defendant were admissible in evidence, as was also the fact of a former difficulty had between the parties. Where these facts are admissible, the nature of the threat may be given, the accompanying act, as well as the words spoken; also, where the fact of a former difficulty is admissible, it is permissible to prove the gravity of the assault. Thornton v. State, supra. In the Thornton Case, supra, these questions are thoroughly discussed.

In the ease at bar the defendant, after proving that there was a former difficulty between the parties, sought to prove that at the time and place deceased “throwed his gun on him and said he was going to kill him.” The act of “throwing the gun on him” (which is in common parlance presenting or pointing a gun at him) is not the detail of a difficulty, but is as much a part of the threat as the spoken words. In fact, there may be a threat, without a. word being-spoken.

It is true a female witness may not be impeached by an attack on her chastity, but the relations existing between a female witness and defendant may be shown, as tending to show her interest in the prosecution then pending. The court did not err in permitting proof of the relation of concubinage between defendant and Annie B. Buck-man.

For the error pointed out, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1930: 11933: 11948: 11953: 11966: 11984: 11987: 11990: 11991: 12000: 119302026peak 1930 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Abernathy v. State187 So. 2d 287 (Ala. Ct. App. 1966)
  2. Arthur v. State575 So. 2d 1165 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)
  3. Kelley v. State145 So. 816 (Ala. 1933) · Dissent
  4. Moseley v. State448 So. 2d 450 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984)
  5. Quinlivan v. State579 So. 2d 1386 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)
  6. King v. State518 So. 2d 191 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)

Most recent

  1. Ex Parte Mason768 So. 2d 1008 (Ala. 2000)
  2. Quinlivan v. State579 So. 2d 1386 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)
  3. Arthur v. State575 So. 2d 1165 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)
  4. King v. State518 So. 2d 191 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)
  5. Moseley v. State448 So. 2d 450 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984)
  6. Abernathy v. State187 So. 2d 287 (Ala. Ct. App. 1966)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Thornton v. State, 90 So. 66 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list