Bryant v. State

• Decision Date: 15 February 1915
• Docket Number: 643
• Citation: 13 Ala.App. 206,68 So. 704
• Parties: BRYANT v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

68 So. 704

13 Ala.App. 206

BRYANT v. STATE.

No. 643

Court of Appeals of Alabama

February 15, 1915

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1915

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; S.E. Greene, Judge.

R Leonard Bryant was convicted of keeping a gaming table, and he appeals. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed, and remanded.

The evidence for the state tended to show a raid by certain police officers, and the finding by them of a game of craps or dice going on at a table in the shape of tables usually kept in gambling houses, with a negro in charge who was taking out for the house. When they arrested the gang, the negro in charge of the place said it was not his place, and about that time Leonard Bryant came in and offered to make bond for the crowd, saying that it was his place. The place was called "Leonard Flats." It was shown that defendant carried the key to the doors of these places.

The following charges were refused to defendant, along with other charges which the court holds to have been covered sufficiently by charges given:

(J) If the jury is reasonably satisfied that defendant is guilty, and believes that there is a probability of his innocence, he must be acquitted.

(10) Although there may be in the minds of the jury no reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt, yet if there is in the minds of the jury a probability of his innocence, it is the duty of the jury to acquit him.

(H) If the jury feel a hesitancy in arriving at a verdict of guilty in this case, they must acquit defendant, even though you may be reasonably satisfied that he is guilty.

(18) Defendant cannot be convicted, unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable theory of his innocence whether that theory of innocence appears from or is sustained by the evidence in the case or not.

(387) Before the jury can convict defendant, they must be satisfied to a moral certainty, not only that the proof is consistent with defendant's guilt, but that it is wholly inconsistent with every other rational conclusion, and unless the jury are so convinced by the evidence of defendant's guilt that they would each venture to act on that decision in matters of highest concern and importance to their own interest, then they must find defendant not guilty.

Charges 756 and M are similar in meaning, but a little different in phraseology.

(999) No matter how strong the facts may be, if they can be reasonably reconciled with the theory that the state's witnesses are mistaken, you should find defendant not guilty.

(28) If any individual juror is able to reconcile the evidence in this case with a reasonable hypothesis of defendant's innocence, the jury cannot convict defendant.

(84) It is not only your duty in this case to give defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt of his guilt, but also to give him the benefit of every reasonable doubt as to what measure of punishment he should receive, should you believe him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

(59) In passing on the evidence. if the jury find that the evidence was in conflict, it is the duty of the jury to reconcile the conflict, if it reasonably can, favorably to the defendant.

J.Q Smith and Horace C. Wilkinson, both of Birmingham, for appellant.

R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

THOMAS J.

There being evidence in the case from which the jury might have inferred the defendant's guilt, and sufficient prima facie to overcome the presumption of innocence, the court committed no error in refusing the affirmative charge requested by the defendant. Jones v. State, 90 Ala. 630, 8 So. 383, 24 Am.St.Rep. 850; Robinson v. State, 8 Ala.App. 435, 62 So. 372; Minto v. State, 8 Ala.App. 306, 62 So. 376; Fulton v. State, 8 Ala.App. 257, 62 So. 959.

Charges 341, 5, and K were properly refused, besides being covered by given charge G.A.G.S.R.R. Co. v. Robinson, 183 Ala. 265, 62 So. 813.

Charge 22, if a correct exposition of the law, is covered by given charges 11, 15, 16, 818, and 25.

Charges D and C, besides being confusing, appear to have been covered by other given charges on the same subject--Nos. 11, 15, 16, 818, and 25.

Charges J and 10 were properly refused, if for no other reasons, as being confusing and misleading. 1 Mayf.Dig. 170, § 14.

Charge 12 is covered by given charge 15, charge 21 by given charge 8, charge 9 by given charge 25, and charge E by given charge 818.

Charge H is so patently bad as not to require comment. Shepperd v. State, 94 Ala. 102, 10 So. 663.

Charge 999, if not otherwise faulty, was properly refused, as it ignored a consideration of the evidence. Collins v. State, 138 Ala. 57, 34 So. 993; Ex parte Acree, 63 Ala. 234.

Charge 18 was bad for the same reason. Sanford v. State, 143 Ala. 82, 39 So. 370.

Charges 387, 756, and M each belong to a class of charges that have been condemned under the later authorities. Stevens v State, 6...