Hutcherson v. State

Hutcherson v. State, 50 So. 1027 (Ala. 1909)

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided: December 16, 1909
Judges: Dowdell, Mayfield, McGlellan, Simpson
Citations: 50 So. 1027165 Ala. 161909 Ala. LEXIS 297
Disposition: Reversed and remanded.

Headnotes

1. Trial; Argument of Counsel. — Where it appeared in the trial that a certain physician was attending defendant at the time of the killing and that such physician lived within the state, and it did not appear that he was not equally accessible to both parties, an argument for the state with the query as to why, the defendant did not bring the physician to the trial, was error to reversal. 2. I-Iomieide; Self Defense; Evidence. — The fact that the husband had on other occasions beat his wife, was not competent for the defendant in a prosecution of the wife for killing the husband, although the plea of self-defense is interposed. 3. Same; Instructions. — Where the wife kills the husband and the plea is self-defense, the wife is entitled to an instruction that while living with the husband in his house, his home is her home, and the law imposes no duty upon her to retreat to avoid a difficulty, even with her husband, if she was free from fault in bringing on the difficulty.

Summary

Murder. Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. John T. Lackland. Cora Hutcherson was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appealed. The oral charge of the court, excepted to, is as follows : “The defendant sets up self-defense in this case, and before she can avail herself to it she must reasonably satisfy you that her life was in danger, either real or apparent, and that she had no safe mode of escape.” Charge 1, referred to, is as follows: “I charge.that, when the wife is living with the husband in his house, his home is her home, and the law imposed no duty upon her to retreat to avoid a difficulty, even with her husband, if she was free from fault in bringing on the difficulty.” — The court erred in refusing charge 1.- — Jones v. The State, 76 Ala. 8; Gary v. The State, 76 Ala. 86; Dolan v. The State, 81 Ala. 17; ■ Lee v. The State, 92 Ala. 19; Perry v. The State, 94 Ala. 29; Haugher v. The State, 105 Ala. 80. On these same authorities the court erred in its oral charge and in excluding evidence relative to former beatings of the wife by her husband. — Evidence of former difficulties was not admissible. — Stalhoorth v. The State, 146 Ala. 8. The court’s oral charge ivas correct, and the court correctly refused charge 1. — Maovwell v. The State, 129 Ala. 40; Howell v. The State, 79 Ala. 283; Goldsmith v. The State, 105. Ala. 8.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — McGlellan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

McGLELLAN, J.

— The defendant was adjudged guilty of murder (second degree) of her husband; the tragedy taking place within their common abode. The justification set up was self-defense. There was evidence tending to support this defense.

In argument to the jury, the representative of the state said: “Gentlemen of the jury, why didn’t the defendant bring Dr. Mason here, and show you by him that he was doctoring her?” Seasonable objection and motion to exclude this statement were overruled. It appears that the defendant testified to Dr. Mason’s professional attendance upon her, and that she was sick at the time of the killing. From the bill it appears that Dr. Mason’s place of residence wás Excel, Ala. It does not appear that this physician was not as accessible to the prosecution as to the defense. Under such circumstances as this record shows, the solicitor’s quoted statement was improper, and should have been disallowed. — Craw ford v. State, 112 Ala. 1, 23 , 21 South. 214 ; Bates v. Morris, 101 Ala. 282 ; Brock v. State, 123 Ala. 24 , 26 South. 329 .

*18 The fact, if so, that deceased had, on former occasions, beat her, was properly excluded.

,The part of tbe oral charge excepted to was erroneous.

Charge 1, given for tbe defendant, announced the lav-applicable to the nonduty of tbe defendant to retreat under tbe circumstances hypothesized.

For tbe error first indicated, tbe judgment is reversed, and tbe cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Dowdell, C. J., and Simpson and Mayfield, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Hamric151 S.E.2d 252 (W. Va. 1966)
United States v. Bennie L. Peterson483 F.2d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
Jarrell v. State36 So. 2d 336 (Ala. 1948)
Forman v. State67 So. 583 (Ala. 1914)
State v. Grantham77 S.E.2d 291 (S.C. 1953)
Coosa Portland Cement Co. v. Crankfield80 So. 451 (Ala. 1918)

Most recent

United States v. Bennie L. Peterson483 F.2d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
State v. Hamric151 S.E.2d 252 (W. Va. 1966)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Larisey112 So. 2d 203 (Ala. 1959)
Harbin v. State82 So. 2d 565 (Ala. Ct. App. 1955)
State v. Grantham77 S.E.2d 291 (S.C. 1953)
State v. Goldberg79 A.2d 702 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)

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 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Crawford v. State, 112 Ala. 1 (1895)	136
	Bates v. Morris, 101 Ala. 282 (1893)	33
	Brock v. State, 123 Ala. 24 (1898)	29

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list