State v. Tally
15 So. 722 (1894)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who is not physically present at the scene of a felony may be convicted as a principal if they, with knowledge of the perpetrators' criminal intent, perform an act intended to and which does in fact aid in the crime's commission. Aid is sufficiently established if the act deprived the victim of a chance of life or made the commission of the crime easier, even if the crime might have occurred without it.
Facts:
- R. C. Ross had engaged in a romantic affair with Annie Skelton, the sister of Robert, John, James, and Walter Skelton, and sister-in-law of Judge John B. Tally.
- On the morning of February 4, 1894, Ross, fearing for his life from the Skelton brothers, secretly fled the town of Scottsboro by hack, intending to travel to Stevenson.
- The four Skelton brothers learned of Ross's flight, armed themselves with guns, and pursued him on horseback.
- Judge Tally, after being informed of the pursuit, went to the local telegraph office in Scottsboro.
- While Tally was at the office, E. H. Ross, a kinsman of the victim, gave the operator a telegram for R. C. Ross in Stevenson, which read: 'Four men on horse back with guns following. Look out.'
- Upon seeing this, Judge Tally wrote and sent his own telegram to the Stevenson operator, William Huddleston, a friend, stating: 'Do not let the party warned get away.' He then added the instruction, 'Say nothing.'
- Upon Ross's arrival in Stevenson, the Skelton brothers ambushed, shot, and killed him.
- The Stevenson operator, Huddleston, received both telegrams but, influenced by Tally's message, delayed delivering the warning to Ross, who was killed before being alerted to the immediate danger.
Procedural Posture:
- An information was brought by the State of Alabama, on the relation of the Attorney General, against Judge John B. Tally.
- The case was an original proceeding in the Supreme Court of Alabama.
- The information sought Judge Tally's removal from office based on two charges: willful neglect of official duty and commission of an offense involving moral turpitude, specifically murder.
- The Supreme Court of Alabama sat as a trier of fact, hearing evidence and witness testimony directly.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who, knowing a murder is in progress, intentionally prevents a warning from reaching the intended victim, thereby depriving the victim of a chance to escape, aid and abet the murder and thus become a principal to the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - McClellan, J.
Yes, a person who intentionally prevents a warning from reaching an intended murder victim aids and abets the murder. The court found that although Judge Tally was not physically present in Stevenson, he was 'constructively present' because he was performing an act from a distance to further the crime. To be an aider and abettor without a pre-arranged conspiracy, one must provide substantive assistance. The court reasoned that Tally's telegram to Huddleston, which successfully prevented the timely delivery of a warning to Ross, constituted such assistance. This act deprived Ross of a chance for his life by preventing him from knowing the number and identity of his attackers, which could have allowed him to flee or better defend himself. The aid provided need not be the sole cause of death; it is sufficient if it facilitated the murder or deprived the victim of a single chance of life.
Dissenting - Head, J.
No, the evidence does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The dissent argues that there is insufficient proof that Tally, in sending the telegram, possessed the specific intent to aid or abet the murder of Ross. Furthermore, there is reasonable doubt as to whether the operator, Huddleston, would have delivered the warning message to Ross in time to prevent the murder, even if Tally's telegram had not been sent.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the concepts of 'constructive presence' and 'aiding and abetting' in accomplice liability. It establishes that an accomplice need not have a pre-arranged plan with the principals or be physically present to be guilty of murder. The decision demonstrates that providing aid from a distance, such as through modern technology like the telegraph, is sufficient if the act is intended to help and does, in fact, contribute to the crime by making it easier or depriving the victim of a chance of survival. This creates a precedent for holding individuals accountable for remote actions that facilitate a crime in progress, a principle with broad implications in the digital age.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Tally