Caraway v. State

• Decision Date: 11 April 1922
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 765.
• Parties: CARAWAY v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

93 So. 376

18 Ala.App. 547

CARAWAY v. STATE.

4 Div. 765.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

April 11, 1922

On Rehearing, May 30, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dale County; J. S. Williams, Judge.

Tom Caraway was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

H. L Martin and Sollie & Sollie, all of Ozark, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, J.

The evidence for the state, if believed beyond a reasonable doubt, was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and the rulings of the court on the admissibility of the testimony were in each instance without prejudicial error.

The defense was that of an alibi and the testimony offered in behalf of defendant tended to establish his contention. Based upon this testimony the defendant requested the following written charges, insisted upon here:

No. 1. "If upon all the evidence the jury have a reasonable doubt as to the defense of an alibi in this case and as to whether or not the proof in this case makes good that defense, then the defendant must be acquitted."

No. 2. "It is not essential to the proof of an alibi that it should cover and account for the whole of the time of the transaction in question, or so much of it as to render it impossible that the defendant could have committed the imputed act."

No. 3. "At no time under the pleadings in this case does the burden shift from the state, notwithstanding the defense of an alibi, to satisfy the jury from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty; and, if upon all the evidence the jury have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, they must acquit him."

No. 4. "The defendant sets up an alibi in this case, and the burden of proof is not changed when he undertakes to prove it, and if by reason of the evidence in relation to such alibi the jury entertain reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt, he should be acquitted, although you may not be able to find that the alibi has been fully proven."

Charge 1 does not state the correct rule relative to an alibi. The burden is on the state to convince the jury by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged, and this burden is never discharged until after a consideration of the whole evidence, including the evidence offered as to an alibi, and the jury is so convinced. In order for the evidence as to an alibi to be sufficient in law to generate in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt, at must be strong and cogent enough to reasonably satisfy the jury, when taken and considered with all the other evidence, that the defendant was at some other place and could not have committed the act charged.

The converse of the proposition asserted in charge No. 2 was held to be error when asked by the state. Albritton v State, 94 Ala. 76, 10 So. 426; Beavers v. State, 103 Ala. 36, 15 So. 616. The rule as announced in the foregoing cases was so declared because the charges as there presented required too high a degree of proof, but when the charge as here written is requested by the defendant, it is calculated to mislead the jury into the erroneous belief that an acquittal might be predicated solely upon proof of an alibi which would not be sufficient, when taken and considered with the whole evidence, to generate a reasonable doubt.

Charge 3 asserts a correct proposition of law, and, not having been substantially given by the court in other charges requested...