Caldwell v. State, 6 Div. 184
Decision Date | 21 August 1951 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 184 |
Citation | 36 Ala.App. 229,55 So.2d 211 |
Parties | CALDWELL v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Jerome Phillips and John T. Batten, Birmingham, for appellant.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Bernard F. Sykes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
These charges were refused to defendant.
'18. The test of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in a criminal case is whether the circumstances, as proven, are capable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis consistent with defendant's innocence, and, if they are capable of such explanation, then the defendant should be acquitted.'
'24. The court charges the jury that proof of good character, if proved to your reasonable satisfaction, may be sufficient to authorize you to acquit defendant, when taken in connection with all the other testimony.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of incest, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of seven years.
The State contends that appellant had sexual intercourse with his daughter, a girl seventeen years of age.
The principal insistence in brief for appellant is that defendant was entitled to an acquittal, because the verdict of the jury was based upon the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix, who was shown to be an accomplice under the facts adduced on the trial. This question is not presented for our decision. The point was not raised in the trial court by the request for the affirmative charge, motion to exclude the evidence, motion for a new trial, nor in any other manner.
In the case of Lockwood v. State, 33 Ala.App. 337, 33 So.2d 401, 402, Bricken, P. J., pertinently stated the rule by which this court is bound in reviewing the nisi prius courts: Pugh v. State, 239 Ala. 329, 194 So. 810; Dodson v. State, 27 Ala.App. 286, 171 So. 384; Denton v. State, 17 Ala.App. 309, 85 So. 41; Dotson v. State, 35 Ala.App. 59, 43 So.2d 434; Lee v. State, 35 Ala.App. 566, 50 So.2d 456.
We have considered the several rulings of the court on the admission and exclusion of the evidence and find no reversible error.
Refused charge 18 has no application. The guilt of the defendant did not depend on circumstantial evidence.
Refused charges 24 and 25 were abstract. Defendant offered no proof of his good character.
The remaining charges refused to defendant were fairly and substantially covered by the court's oral charge, to which no exceptions were reserved, or by the charges given at defendant's request.
There being no reversible error in the record, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.
Affirm...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allison v. Briskey
...54 So.2d 317 ... 36 Ala.App. 225 ... 6 Div. 237 ... Court of Appeals of Alabama ... Oct. 2, ... Hickman, 63 Ala. 494; Parsons v. State, 251 Ala. 467, 38 So.2d 209; World Fire & Marine Insurance ... Singleton v. Doe, 184 Ala. 199, 63 So. 949; Holland-Blow Stave Co. v. Whitman, ... ...
-
Goulden v. State
...trial. It is our opinion the question is not presented for our consideration. Pugh v. State, 239 Ala. 329, 194 So. 810; Caldwell v. State, 36 Ala.App. 229, 55 So.2d 211; Fuller v. State, 38 Ala.App. 493, 90 So.2d At Common Law, unlike our Code 1940, T. 15, § 307, a felony conviction could o......
- Caldwell v. State, 6 Div. 455
-
Reese v. State, 5 Div. 333
...of good character with the concept of reasonable doubt of his guilt. Contrary to Defendant's argument of what is held in Caldwell v. State, 36 Ala.App. 229, 55 So.2d 211, certiorari stricken, 256 Ala. 466, 55 So.2d 213; that case found that this charge is 'abstract', and disapproved Perhaps......