Bohlman v. State

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: TYSON, J.
• Citation: Bohlman v. State, 135 Ala. 45, 33 So. 44 (Ala. 1902)
• Decision Date: 27 November 1902
• Parties: BOHLMAN v. STATE.

33 So. 44

135 Ala. 45

BOHLMAN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 27, 1902

Appeal from city court of Mobile; O. J. Semmes, Judge.

Louis Bohlman was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

On the trial of the case, Martin Cochran, the person assaulted testified that the defendant, who was his brother-in-law shot him with a shotgun; that the shooting occurred about half past 7 o'clock on the evening of April 5, 1902. Martin Cochran's little son, who was 10 years old, and his two daughters, who were older, each testified to the defendant having shot said Cochran. The evidence for the defendant tended to prove an alibi, by showing that at the time designated by the state's witness the defendant was 2 1/2 miles away from the house of Martin Cochran, where the shooting occurred. The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that he was not at the house of Martin Cochran on the night he was alleged to have been shot, nor had he been there for three years prior to that time. Henry Bohlman, a brother of the defendant, was examined as a witness for the defendant, and testified that he knew Martin Cochran's reputation in the community where he lived, and it was bad. On the cross-examination of this witness (Henry Bohlman), he testified that he had heard that Cochran had been indicted for stealing. The solicitor then asked the witness the following question: "Indicted where, and in what court?" The defendant objected to this question because it called for irrelevant, incompetent, and illegal evidence. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The witness answered that he had heard that Cochran had been indicted in Mobile county. During the examination of the defendant as a witness, and after he had testified that prior to the shooting he and Martin Cochran had a dispute in regard to some lands, he was then asked by his attorney the following question: "In the land dispute, you were successful, weren't you?" The state objected to this question becuse it called for irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent evidence. The court sustained the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The court, at the request of the state, gave to the jury the following written charges: "(a) The court charges the jury that, in determining the weight they will give to the defendant's testimony, they should consider, along with all the other circumstances having any bearing on the matter the fact that he is the defendant, and the fact, if they so find, that his testimony is in conflict with the other testimony in the case. (b) The court charges the jury that the interest the defendant has in the case may be considered by them in weighing his own evidence. (c) The court charges the jury that to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty does not mean that the state must make the proof by an eyewitness, or to a positive, absolute mathematical certainty. This latter measure of proof is not required in any case. If, from all the evidence, the jury believe that it is possible, or that it may be, or perhaps the defendant is not guilty, this degree of uncertainty does not amount to a reasonable doubt, and does not entitle defendant to an acquittal. All that is required is that the defendant is guilty, and if you so believe, beyond all reasonable doubt, from the evidence, that the shooting occurred in this county, before the finding of this indictment, you must find the defendant guilty, although you may also believe from the evidence that it may be he is not guilty, or that it is possible he is not guilty. (d) The court further charges the jury that in whatever form the question of reasonable doubt may be couched, and however it may be twisted by words, a reasonable doubt is no more than a reasonable doubt, and that in considering the case you are not to go beyond the evidence to hunt up doubts, nor must you entertain such doubts as are merely imaginary or conjectural. A doubt, to justify an acquittal, must be reasonable, and it must arise from a candid and impartial investigation of all the evidence in the case; and if, after considering all the evidence, you can say that you have a fixed conviction of the truth of the charge, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt." The defendant separately excepted to the giving of each of these charges, and also separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of the following written charges requested by him: "(5) The humane...