The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-15
WEBB V. THE STATE. Indictment for Murder.-Appeal from tl

Criminal Court of Greene.
 1. Homicide ;admissibility of evidence as to threats.-On trial under an fndict- ment for murder 1t was shown that the person killed by the defendant was po- liceman. The evidence for the State tended to show that on the night of the killing and prior thereto the defendant presented pistol at one B. and male him leave the latter's room; that lateF during the night B. preferred a charge against the defendant and requested the police officer who was killed to arrest him; that B. and another person accom- panied the deceased to the room where the defendant was; that the deceased an- nounced to the defendant that he was an officer and was there to arrest him and demanded that the door be opened; that suddenly the door was opened. the de- fendant fired several shots one or which | killed the officer. A witpess, who was in the room with the defendant at the time of the shooting. testified that she heard | nothing in the hall just before the shooting except when B. asked if the defendant was In, and she told B. to go away and have no trouble. B. testified that he ask ed if the defendant was in the room and then the officer told the defendant to ccn- slider himself under arrest. On the cross
  threaten the life of the defendant or had any trouble with him previous to the night of the homicide. There was evil Gence that the defendant had said after his arrest that if he had known it was an officer who was at the door. he would not have shot him. Held: It was not competent on the cross examination of the witness in behalf of the defendant who testified to her having been in the house at the time of the shooting. for the defendant to ask said witness: If that night she heard B. make threats against defendant?"
 2. Homicide: charge of court to jury On a trial under an indictment for the murder of one Walton. charge request ed by the defendant is erroneous and properly refused which instructs the jury that generalization means the prior de- termination on the part>of the defendant to take the life of Walton; and if the jury are not satisfied from all the evil dence in the case beyond all reasonable doubt and have an abiding conviction to a moral certainty. that defendant had a prior determination to take the life of Walton before he fired the shot, the jury can not convict him of murder in the first degree"
 3. Sane; charge as to premeditation.-
  der. a charge Is erroneous and properly refused which instructs the jury that reconciliation means to think on or re- volve in the mind beforehand, and unless the jury are satisfied beyond all reason able doubt and have an abiding convic- ton to q moral certainty. from all the evidence in the case, that defendant had time to think and revolve, or turn over In his mind. the probable consequences of his act before he fired the shot, and that defendant contrived and designed pre- vious to the firing of the shot, to take the life of deceased, the jury can not find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree.
 4. Trial and Its incidents: argument of attorney.-On the trial of a criminal case, the Solicitor for the State does not trans gross the latitude allowed in argument by stating to the jury that as the repre- sentative of the State he has no interest in the conviction of any man and would not permit the conviction of an innocent man if he knew 1t: that he received his salary whether or not there was a sin gle conviction and that he had no inter est in the case except to see the law en- forced
 5. Trial and its incidents; motion for continuance the trial of criminal case. a motion for a continuance of the cause Is addressed to the sound discre- ton of the trial court; and in the ab- serce of palpable abuse oe such discre- ton. the ruling of the trial court on said motion will rot be reviewed on appeal.
 Affirmed.
 on;nion bv Shsrne l.