Anderson v. State
| Decision Date | 04 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 916. |
| Citation | 93 So. 68,18 Ala.App. 429 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. C. B. Gwin, Judge.
Jim Anderson was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed as to conviction, but remanded for proper sentence.
Roderick, Beddow and Ben F. Ray, both of Birmingham, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The oral charge of the court in reference to manslaughter, when taken and considered as a whole, does not appear to be subject to criticism. Bailum v. State, 17 Ala. App. 679, 88 So. 200.
Appellant complains at a part of the court's oral charge, dealing with the speed law, with reference to the operation of automobiles along the public highway; but an examination of the record discloses that no exception was reversed to this part of the oral charge.
The defendant, having been convicted of manslaughter in the second degree, cannot complain at the refusal of the court in refusing charges on murder in the second degree and manslaughter in the first degree.
Refused charges 11 and 12, being the affirmative charges, were properly refused, as the evidence was in conflict, and there is evidence in the record to justify a conviction.
Refused charge 17 is elliptical.
Refused charges 4 and 6 do not state correct principles of law. To be guilty of second degree manslaughter, it was not necessary that the automobile be intentionally run over deceased, as stated in said charges. If the act had been intentionally committed, the offense would of necessity be a higher one than second degree manslaughter.
Refused charges 5, 13, 14, and 16 are bad, in that they would justify an acquittal of defendant if the injury was accidental, while the law justifies conviction if the defendant was engaged in an unlawful act, or the doing of a lawful act in an unlawful manner.
The record is free from error, except the sentence. To sentence to 314 days' hard labor to pay the costs in erroneous, as 10 months, of 30 days each, or 300 days, is the maximum period for which one can be sentenced to pay the costs. Code 1907, §§ 8, 7635.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed, but the cause is remanded for proper sentence.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ledbetter v. State
... ... 344, 186 So. 460; ... Knight v. State, 22 Ala.App. 557, 117 So. 804 ... Charge ... 4 was properly refused. Campbell v. State, 13 ... Ala.App. 70, 69 So. 322; Matthews v. State, 16 ... Ala.App. 514, 79 So. 507; Washington v. State, 18 ... Ala.App. 82, 89 So. 103; Anderson v. State, 18 ... Ala.App. 429, 93 So. 68; Wilson v. State, 32 ... Ala.App. 591, 28 So.2d 646 ... In the ... recent case of Brown v. State, Ala.App., 31 So.2d ... 670, we held that a charge similar to number 5, and its ... duplicate, number 12, in the instant case was refused ... ...
-
Jarrell v. State
...Ala.App., 37 So.2d 670. There was no error in refusing charge number 11. Campbell v. State, 13 Ala.App. 70, 69 So. 322; Anderson v. State, 18 Ala.App. 429, 93 So. 68; Wilson v. State, 32 Ala.App. 591, 28 So.2d 646; Ledbetter v. State, Ala.App., 36 So.2d 564. We find that charge number 14 wa......
-
Jarrell v. State
... ... Edwards v ... State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179; Jones v. [35 ... Ala.App. 262] State, 209 Ala. 655, 96 So. 867; ... Scott v. State, Ala.App., 37 So.2d 670 ... There was no error ... in refusing charge number 11. Campbell v. State, 13 ... Ala.App. 70, 69 So. 322; Anderson v. State, 18 ... Ala.App. 429, 93 So. 68; Wilson v. State, 32 ... Ala.App. 591, 28 So.2d 646; Ledbetter v. State, ... Ala.App., 36 So.2d 564 ... We find that charge ... number 14 was approved in Pickens v. State, 115 Ala ... 42, 22 So. 551. Error was not predicated on its ... ...
-
Jones v. State
...the homicide may have been an accident, and still the defendant might be guilty of manslaughter in the second degree. Anderson v. State, 18 Ala.App. 429, 93 So. 68. evidence being in conflict, the general charge was properly refused. There are some other exceptions reserved, but these will ......