Court Opinion

ID: 9825107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:05:47.107498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:24.528269
License: Public Domain

On Eehearing.
This court has no inclination, and certainly no desire, to deprive appellant of any legal right in the review of his case, and hence we comply with the request of his eminent counsel by herein setting out appellant’s version of the facts of the case as stated in his brief. As there stated, his version of the facts is as follows:
“The real facts appear .to be, as contended by appellant, that the deceased and his brother entertained very bitter animosity against the defendant, growing out of a charge that defendant had seduced their niece and the counter charge by defendant that Oliver Sweat was the seducer of his own niece.
“Shortly prior to the killing the deceased and his brother Oliver had picked a quarrel with defendant at a singing in Guntersville, and on another occasion Oliver had brought on another quarrel with him at the home of one Andy Perkins.- The evidence was undisputed that the character of the deceased for peace and quiet was bad'. ' There was also evidence of threats by him and his brother against defendant.
“When the crowd happened to gather at the little store on that Sunday, both of the Sweats were drinking. It is certain that defendant was not drinking to any appreciable extent, if at all. Some of the witnesses were also under the influence' of liquor.' The ground was well prepared for trouble when the Sweats, well steeped in liquor, were brought face to face with the man whom perhaps they most detested. One witness, Gordon Black, testified that the first he heard, deceased said, ‘there was a son of a bitch there he was going to whip.’ Milton Brooks said the first thing that attracted his attention was that he ‘happened‘to notice how these boys were watching each other’; that ‘the Sweat boys seemed to be watching Dock.’ Defendant testified that the two Sweats ‘began to whisper out'there to each other’; that he could tell ‘they were mad’; that he watched them and they kept watching him; that deceased then said to Oliver Sweat, ‘Get him’; that Oliver started up where he was and that deceased began walking up too, and that he (defendant) told them to stop and that they stopped.
“The State’s witnesses corroborated defendant. Woodrow Jones testified that Oliver Sweat ‘started around that way’ (indicating where defendant was standing) and that defendant drew his pistol and told Oliver to stop, and that deceased then started around and that defendant drew the pistol on deceased. Oliver Sweat, brother of the deceased, and a participant with deceased in the difficulty, testified that ‘the first thing that was done I started up on the front porch (i. e., where defendant was then standing) and Narrell commenced running backward and said, “God damn you, don’t come by me,” and I made another step and Oat Ballew ran out and shoved me back. I stood there a minute and went on back to where Barclay’s car was.’ ”
The foregoing construction of the facts, whether intentionally or not, apparently ignores the evidence adduced upon behalf of the state and the tendencies thereof. In the opinion, to which we adhere, we stated that the facts in evidence were in sharp conflict and were therefore for the jury to determine.
In the opinion, it is stated, this court sitting en banc had read and considered each insistence of error as shown by appellant’s assignments 1 to 33, inclusive, and found no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant. Other assignments of error were treated; hence as the writer sees it no insistence of error on this appeal has been ignored or pretermitted, and the appellant deprived of no substantial right. The questions comprehended in said assignments of error are elementary, and need no specific discussion.
From the whole record it appears the defendant has been accorded a fair and impartial trial free from px-ejudicial error. More than this, he has no right to demand or expect. The application for rehearing; is overruled.
Application overruled.