Case ID: ala-app_26/html/0383-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMFORD, Judge. SAMFORD, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

161 So. 107
    WINGARD v. STATE.
    4 Div. 75.
    Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Dec. 18, 1934.
    Rehearing Denied April 2, 1935.
    W. H. Stoddard, of Luverne, for appellant.
    Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.
   SAMFORD, Judge.

The record in this case presents no new or novel questions of law. The evidence, with slight conflict, discloses a willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder. The jury after having all the evidence and the charge of the court rendered a verdict convicting the defendant of manslaughter in the first decree.

The rulings of the court on the admission of evidence were free from prejudicial error-, and the charges refused to defendant were either abstract or were covered fully by the court in his oral charge.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

On Rehearing.

SAMFORD, Judge.

It is insisted in brief of counsel on rehearing that the trial court was in error in sustaining the state’s objection to the statement of the defendant's witness Botts that about; two hours by sun on the day of and before the homicide, defendant came to the field where witness and others were picking peanuts and said he was going hunting to kill a rabbit. This was in no way connected with the homicide and tended to prove nothing connected with the crime charged. Such declarations before the officer are not admissible in favor of accused unless a part of the res gestie. Ex parte State, 199 Ala. 255, 74 So. 366; Jones v. State, 174 Ala. 53, 57 So. 31.

Application overruled.