CADDELL v. THE STATE
Item
- Title
- CADDELL v. THE STATE
- Source
- The Montgomery Advertiser (AL)
- Date
- 7/19/01
- page
- 7
- Identifier
- Image 7 of The Montgomery advertiser (Montgomery, Ala.), July 19, 1901 | Library of Congress (loc.gov)
- Crime
- Murder
- Subject
- adultery; concealed pistol
- Race of alleged offender
- white alleged offender
- Gender of alleged offender
- Male; Female alleged offenders
- Race of alleged victim
- White alleged victim
- Gender of alleged victim
- Female alleged victim
- Stage of the Legal System
- sentencing/appeal
- Location
- in state
- Length of story
- 746
- Description
-
CADDELL v. THE STATE.
Indictment for Murder.—Appeal from
the Circuit Court of Bibb.
1. Organization of Jury; motion to
quash venire.—Where in the organiza-
tion of a jury to try a capital case, the
fact that the same person answered to
the name of “Acey Blake” and “A. F.
Blake” when called at different times,
constitutes no ground to quash the venire, when it is shown that said named
appearing on the venire were each intended to, and did, in fact, designate a
different person.
a. Same; same.—The fact that one of
the persons who was drawn to serve on
the special venire In a capital case was
not summoned or was absent at the
time of the trial, constitutes no ground for quashing the venire.
3. Homicide; conspiracy; admissibility of evidence.-The defendant in a
criminal case was jointly indicted with
a woman for the murder of his wife,
and was tried separately. There was
evidence tending to show that his co-
defendant was his paramour; that he
was at enmity with his wife; had several times threatened her life; that the
deceased had commenced a prosecution
against his co-defendant for living
with him in adultery; that his co-defendant had lived at his house, and
on the day of the homicide, the deceased with some officers, having a
warrant to search the woman’s trunk,
came to the defendant's house for that
purpose; that when the deceased came
to the house, the defendant threatened
to kill her. had afterwards told his co-
defendant to make the deceased get
out of the house; that in talking to his
wife the defendant applied a vile epi-
thet. whereupon she exhibited a pistol
and said that she would kill him if he
repeated the statement; that while the
search was proceeding, the defendant
called bis co-defendant Into an adjoin-
ing room and said something to her In
a low tone of voice, which could not be
heard by the other persons In the
house, whereupon his co-defendant re-
turned to where tire deceased was, and
after saying something to her snatched
the pistol away from the deceased and
fired upon her, inflicting the fatal
wound. Held.
(I.) It was competent for a witness,
who testified as to his having a con-
versation with the defendant about the
conduct of another man towards
his co-defendant, to state that
the defendant said to him
"he would kill anybody that Interfered
with him and that woman.”
(2.) That acts of undue and improper intimacy between the defend 1.it and
his co-defendant were admissible as
tending to show his Infatuation for the
woman and as disclosing a motive for
Inciting the crime.
(3.) As evidence of motive Induced
b.y actual interference. It vas proper to
prove the institution by 'he deceased
of a prosecution of the woman for
adultery, by Introducing in evidence the
affidavit and warrant in that case;
and it is in the discretion of the court
as to whether such evidence su'd precede or come after the evidence disclosing act of participation in the conspiracy to commit the crime (4.) In such a case for the incrimination of the defendant as a conspirator with, or as an accomplice of the actual slayer, it is not necessary 'o r cover by direct, positive evidence, that he In- cited or encouraged his co-defendant to the killing. 4. Insanity; competency of non-expert testimony.—On an issue of sanity vel non. a non-expert witness may give his opinion affirming the sanity of the person inquired about, without a specification of the facts upon which such opinion is based; and it is competent for such witness, who is shown to have known the person lnqftlA*d about, to testify that He had never seen any indications or evidence of Insanity. 5. Homicide; admissibility of evi- dence.—Where a husband m Indicted for the murder of his wife, and there is evidence tending to show unlawful or criminal relation* between him and another woman, who stayed at the defendant's house, and a witness has testified that the defendant and the de- ceased lived happily and agreeably to- gether until said woman went to their house, it Is not competent or admissible for such witness to further testify that, after said woman went to the house, she had often seen the deceased crying; and the admission of suck testimony constitutes a reversible error. Reversed and remanded. Opinion by Sharpe, J.
