Connell v. State Court Opinion 3

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Page 792, continuation of Connell v. State Case Summary 1 and 2 (LDFA-03_bzm-e_46, LDFA-03_bzm-e_47).

Matter
- Bozeman v. Lambert
Case
- Bozeman v. Lambert
U.S. state
- Alabama
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 04554a8c-ee92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Case Files, Bozeman & Wilder Working Files. Connell v. State Court Opinion 3, 1974. 04554a8c-ee92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/1056357d-c521-4dc3-8ac6-26d5ff2c4fde/connell-v-state-court-opinion-3. Accessed December 04, 2025.

Copied!

    Ala.792 3I8 SOUTEER,N R,EPORTER,, 2d SEN,IES
knife rvas being s.ielded and in such amanner as to cause thc dcath of Mr. Fro_
ney.

[15] We hold that the jury could drarva reasonable inference from the secretive
conference by the three men and their hud_dle over the victim that the a.t"naant *a,an accomplice to the homicide.

. The guilt of the defendant would not

if, giving due rveight to all the testirun1', the jury are convinced l.yonO-""il
sonable doubt that th" d.f;;.;;;
present with a vien, to
it.t,".o",. n.;;;;, :;.Tii:l il:,JIof the offense is mad
Casc,59 Ata. l{)g; ,r,i^.,o^")t 

R:jfy,
65 et seq., ris",,ii ;;'.:!' 

casc' to2 At,.

,,The 
evidence vr.a

<:oncerted action orT:t;l,i :fl;tJ
<lefcndarrts in going to tf,. ,.nlot. plirvhen the nrurder s.as committed on 6rafternoon of October 3, lg3.l, ,na ftthey all were in a position ,o ,.ra.rl.

sr-stance in the commission of the crirnr.There rvas cr.iderrcc of ..p"r"tion .ir.,the nrurder and a gatherirrg in Bosrolate ill thc er.ening. The contrar.lictor;
statenteltts rrrade by the sevt,ral dcfcnd'.
arrts and the possession by onc of thcaof an implcnrent like one by which itmight have lleen found by the jury thra rnortal blow u.as inflicted up,on Lirmurdered man u,ere highly significrnA verdict of guilt-r, of murder in the rcr.

ond degrce u,as u.arranted on thc cd,
dencc. There s.as no error in dcnyig
the motiorrs for directed verdicts in h.
vor of the defendants. * * tt'

We also refer to our recent case of IlU
Sratc, .51 AIa.App. 332, Z8S So.Zd fl

have to be established as to his havi

Wc also quote from Connronztcalth 
G.l,'entura, ct ol., 294 \Ia*hp,oi-:. ^__ .r-.-ll3, I N.E2d{,

tually wielded,;; ;;;;"J::r:il''ii;; rvherein it appears that Ve,,iura;f;1.l
others wcro ^^-,,:^a^J., d -,, r\LLurilpue(] Lode 1959. In Jonest,. Stote, lZ4 Ala. 53, 57 So. 3f , or. 

-ir_ murder. Thcre u.as
which defeni",- 

',nl.,li ;:'i:ffi illThe appellate court observed:

i 16l
ftul:)'
f\ iI C

; .\'/ir
tt ,. ..1 ll ;

."t .il:
l,nr 5(

t rttttit;

\\'c ,

c!'r ill
I lrc Hr

our Su-

l\.r.:t.l

It ;t1

,,,::,i,rcl
i i(l)i \\

'r:: llrrtt

, lr ,:11t.:

. ,rr..

',.ri,

, , it:rl-l
,r;:t,lr)il

; ,'r r,.rrl;r
l':t:.rlirt
tr lrr.trl.
i, ,i.:::t r

i t, ..:Lrt,

lr'.,i;tril'r
.,.t1\ (._\.C_

llrq rt j;111

rrtr ;t t;ll),
tlrr. l;rrr.,
r t,l lrl r,o,
.,',i,,rltcr

pr:r: Court qrroted rl.ith ,ppri."iion 
-"

principle in ltlorris z). State, r+oTi".-Li, +iSo. 27J,28(), as follows :

"When by prearrangement, or on thespur of the moment, ,two or ao." pa._
sons enter upon a contnlon enterprise oradventure, and a crimin"l off"nr.';, .oi-tcmplated, then eacl
and i f thc r,, ;r"-.r'.j:r,:.'""JJ::'ff ",:
guilty of the offense conrntitted, whether
he did any overt act or not. This restson the principle that one rvho is present,
encouraging. aiding, abetting, or' o.ri.i_
li,{' ..t who is ready to aid, abct, or as_srst, thc active perpetrator in the conr_mrssron of the of fense, is a guilty partic_tPant, and, in the eye of the law, iseQually grrilty with the one rvho does theact. .Srrch comnrunitl. of ,rrpor", o,conspirac;., necd not be proved by posi_tive testimony. It rarcl-y i, ,o i.orJ.The ju11, are to deterrnirre rvhether it e-x_ists, arrd the extent of it, from the 

"on-duct of the parties and all the testinronv
in the CaSe.", '-"r 

t,.

In loncs, supra, the Strprente Court further
observed:

It is to be noted that all four of L
hitchhikers flcd the scene of the hornicll
and were apprehcnded in a nrotel in Dd
IIar, California. ,\lso discoveretl in O,
roont u,ith them were several other erti*r
takcn fronr thc canrlrt,r. r,. Irt re the homit*

"Aid and abet .conrprehend 
all assist_alrce relrdered by acts or rvords of en_couragentcnt or support or presence, ac_trurl rrr c()l)slru(:tive, to render assistance

Ir
i !':lf ?

ls (,

('a rt

:l

rlrould it Llt...,rrrr,. rleccss:lrJ. --No p:rrtjcu-rr(.(,)ln(. rleCCsS:lrJ. --NO p:rftjCU-

l:,1".: i.,. ,,t.ccsrar\.. 
J f encorrragc_

occrrrrctl. lt i5 nr)t :j.
i.{llt trilr}sJ)ortc(l tlrt.,,
\\(l l,.itl,,f,l:, ,.

Ir;rt tht'<Jcl./}.
,'1,'s, Lul-lF
(lirri',(il!'.\ 'g';)i( r;i l)(

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Connell v. State Court Opinion 3

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in