Burkett v. State
| Decision Date | 13 January 1927 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 821 |
| Citation | 215 Ala. 453,111 So. 34 |
| Parties | BURKETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; R.L. Blanton, Judge.
Albert Burkett was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Charles R. Wiggins and T.L. Sowell, both of Jasper, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Counsel representing defendant have assigned for error two rulings on questions of evidence. It is not considered that they need special treatment. In our opinion there is no reversible error shown by either ruling.
As for the exception reserved on the solicitor's argument to the jury, the court did all that was necessary to correct the argument and place the jury in a position to consider the case properly--if, indeed, correction was necessary--when defendant's objection was sustained and the statement excluded from the jury.
Charges 3 and 8 were elliptical. Moreover, the statements therein of law which, we may assume, defendant sought to get before the jury were, in better form, covered by the court's oral charge, and by special instructions given on defendant's request.
Charges 10 and 30, requested by defendant, dealt with the subject of self-defense. These charges ignored the doctrine of retreat. Similar charges giving proper place and effect to the doctrine of retreat as an element of self-defense were given by the court.
Defendant's charge 26 was refused without error. We assume that by "suspicious facts" the charge intends questionable circumstances, i.e., facts that might or might not tend to inculpate defendant according to the point of view. But the state's case was far from depending on proof of such circumstances. There was, indeed, abundant and undisputed evidence that defendant had shot and killed deceased, and he admitted the killing. His defense was that deceased had first fired upon him, and that he had acted in self-defense, or, at worst, that he was guilty of manslaughter only. In this posture of the case it is not perceived that the charge in question could have served a proper purpose. Rather it tended to mislead the jury to think that some of the facts in evidence, as, for example, that defendant went to the place of the homicide heavily armed, was a mere suspicious circumstance, and needed no consideration by the jury. This charge was therefore refused without error. Mitchell v State, 129 Ala. 38, 30 So. 348.
Charges 28, 29, 32, 33, and 36 were charges on the subject of reasonable doubt as to which the court had fully instructed the jury by its oral charge and by special instructions. There was no error as to these charges.
Defendant's charge 34 was properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuller v. State
...not to consider them was amply sufficient for that purpose and that no injury occurred to the appellant in this regard. See Burkett v. State, 215 Ala. 453, 111 So. 34; Burch v. State, 32 Ala.App. 529, 29 So.2d 422; Elliott v. State, 19 Ala.App. 263, 97 So. 115; Bell v. State, 25 Ala.App. 44......
-
State v. Flory
... ... them entertained a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, whether ... the rest of them were free of any such doubt or not." ... In ... Alabama the court seems to have drawn some fine distinctions ... on this point and the holdings do not seem to be altogether ... harmonious. In Burkett v. State, 215 Ala. 453, 111 ... So. 34, it was held that an instruction to the effect that if ... a single juror has reasonable doubt of guilt there can be no ... conviction, is properly rejected for the reason that it ... "seems to mean more than that reasonable doubt of one ... juror ... ...
-
Payne v. State
...the action of the trial court in sustaining defendant's objection to such remark and admonishing the jury to disregard it. Burkett v. State, 215 Ala. 453, 111 So. 34; James v. State, supra. The same is true of a remark made by the solicitor to the effect that Howard Kennamer was going to be......
-
Green v. State
...shall take place in the jury room. Wilson v. State, 243 Ala. 1, 8 So.2d 422; Russo v. State, 236 Ala. 155, 181 So. 502; Burkett v. State, 215 Ala. 453, 111 So. 34; Thomas v. State, 37 Ala.App. 179, 66 So.2d 189; Hollis v. State, 37 Ala.App. 453, 70 So.2d 279; Abercrombie v. State, 33 Ala.Ap......