Opinion
8 Div. 87.
February 26, 1935.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; J. Fred Johnson, Jr., Judge.
Charlie Smallwood was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. P. Almon, of Florence, for appellant.
The details of a former difficulty may not be proved. Pressley v. State, 166 Ala. 17, 20, 52 So. 337; Jones v. State, 116 Ala. 468, 23 So. 135; Martin v. State, 77 Ala. 1, 2. Proof of a collateral crime is never relevant evidence unless connected with the crime under investigation, as part of the general or composite transaction. Underhill, Cr.Evi. (2d Ed.) § 88; Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 313; Robinson v. State, 5 Ala. App. 45, 47, 59 So. 321; Brock v. State, 26 Ala. 104.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Evidence of what occurred one or two hours before the fatal difficulty — relative to drinking by both defendant and deceased, an argument about whisky, and a threat against deceased by defendant — was admissible as connected acts and transactions leading up to and explanatory of the case. Newman v. State, 25 Ala. App. 526, 149 So. 724; Roberts v. State, 25 Ala. App. 477, 149 So. 356; McGee v. State, 25 Ala. App. 232, 144 So. 112; Sandlin v. State, 25 Ala. App. 311, 146 So. 82; Weems v. State, 222 Ala. 346, 132 So. 711. In homicide cases, the general nature and gravity of previous difficulties are properly admitted in evidence. Mills v. State, 21 Ala. App. 46, 104 So. 889; Folkes v. State, 17 Ala. App. 119, 82 So. 567; White v. State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So. 709, and threats or expressions of ill will by defendant against deceased. 15 Alabama and Southern Digest, page 123, 158.
The exceptions reserved on the taking of testimony and discussed in the brief filed here on behalf of appellant cannot avail for either of two reasons.
In the first place, it is very clear to us that the rulings complained of worked no injury — in the face of his own admissions — to appellant's rights.
But if this were not so, and in the second place, "evidence of connected acts leading up to and explanatory of killing, throwing light on action, animus, or intent of accused, is admissible, though not res gestæ." See Newman v. State, 25 Ala. App. 526, 149 So. 724.
The portion of the oral charge of the court to which exception was reserved, when taken and considered in connection with the entire charge of the court — as it must be — is not subject to criticism.
Appellant appears to have had, in every way, a fair trial. The question of his guilt vel non was purely one of fact — under the testimony — and it was left, properly, to the jury for decision.
There seems no occasion to discuss the evidence; nor to outline it. The case presents merely another instance of whisky taking its toll of human life — and liberty. Appellant and deceased were closely related by blood; there was no motive — merely a drunken fight — ending in tragedy.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.