Carroll v. State
| Decision Date | 25 September 1981 |
| Parties | Ex parte State of Alabama. (In re Bruce Quillan CARROLL v. STATE of Alabama). 80-433. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Thomas R. Allison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Donald R. White, Moulton, for respondent.
We granted the State's petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals which held that the trial court erred when it refused a jury charge requested by the defendant.
The defendant was indicted and tried on a charge of robbery. He requested thirty-seven written jury charges that were all denied. The jury found the defendant guilty and the judge sentenced him to fifteen years in prison. The case was appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, 407 So.2d 173, which reversed the trial court. The basis for the reversal was the refusal of the trial judge to give defendant's requested charge number 27 which read as follows:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I charge, that the legal presumption of innocence is to be regarded by the jury, in every case, as a matter of evidence, to the benefit of which the accused is entitled, and, as a matter of evidence it attends the accused until his guilt, by the evidence, is placed beyond a reasonable doubt.
As authority supporting its decision, the Court of Criminal Appeals cited the following language in Brooks v. State, 380 So.2d 1012 (Ala.Crim.App.1980):
... The refusal of this requested charge is error and requires a reversal where it is not fairly and substantially covered in the court's oral charge. Wilson v. State, 243 Ala. 1, 21, 8 So.2d 422 (1942); Brown v. State, 33 Ala.App. 97, 104, 31 So.2d 670 (1946); Salter v. State, 22 Ala.App. 86, 88, 112 So.2d 538 (1927); Diamond v. State, 15 Ala.App. 33, 39, 72 So. 558 (1916). The only exception to this rule is where the evidence is not conflicting and the general affirmative charge is given in the State's favor. Bertrand v. State, 46 Ala.App. 631, 247 So.2d 386 (1971). Here, the evidence was conflicting and the affirmative charge was not given. Here also, the "generality of the oral charge ... was not sufficient to cover the principle, 'as a matter of evidence' ", in the refused charge. Denson v. State, 50 Ala.App. 409, 412, 279 So.2d 580, 583 (1973). Consequently, the refusal of requested charge number 4 was error. (emphasis added)
The oral charge given by the trial judge stated:
Now, the Defendant in this case, just as the Defendant in every criminal case tried within the State of Alabama, is presumed innocent. The presumption of innocence of a Defendant in a criminal case attaches from the very time that the finger of the law points toward the Defendant, up until his case is taken before the Grand Jury, up until he is indicted and brought before you, the jury, and I submit to you right at this very time, the Defendant is still presumed to be innocent, that he must still be shielded by that presumption of innocence until you have retired to the jury room, and from your consideration of all the evidence in this case you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that he is guilty. When and if, of course, after consideration of the evidence in this case you find that the State has met the burden of proof, and you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainly, then of course he is no longer entitled to the presumption of innocence, because it has been overcome by the evidence. And then it is just as much your duty to convict him, if you feel from the evidence that he is guilty, as it is to acquit him if the evidence fails to produce that abiding conviction in your mind.
So as a matter of Law, I charge you that you cannot convict the Defendant in this case until the presumption of innocence has been overcome by the evidence, which has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slaton v. State
...of innocence was adequately put before the jury." Finley v. State, 606 So.2d 198, 201 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), quoting Carroll v. State, 407 So.2d 177, 179 (Ala.1981); Grace v. State, 456 So.2d 862 Slaton also contends that the State failed to prove an adequate chain of custody regarding the bo......
-
Ex parte Coker
... ... Meadows, Gen. Counsel, and Jim R. Ippolito, Jr., Associate Counsel, Dept. of Educ., for amicus curiae Dr. Wayne Teague, State Superintendent of Educ ... Edward M. George, Div. of Legal and Personnel Services, Alabama Dept. of Postsecondary Educ., and ... Crim. App. 1981); Andrews copy of Sections ... v. State, 406 So.2d 1041 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981); 13A-8-50 through ... Carroll v. State, 407 So.2d 177 (Ala. 1981); Conner 13A-8-52 as they ... v. State, 407 So. 2d 862 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981); appear in the 1982 ... ...
-
Morrison v. State
...In any event, we note that the trial court did, in fact, adequately instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence. See Ex parte Carroll, 407 So.2d 177 (Ala.1981). Compare United States v. Dilg, 700 F.2d 620 (11th Cir.1983) (total failure to charge on presumption of innocence). VI. There......
-
Thornton v. State
...meaning. Therefore, in light of the jury charge, taken as a whole, and the facts of this case, we find no error. See Carroll v. State, 407 So.2d 177, 179 (Ala.1981) ("it is the charge in its totality and not some 'magic words' that must determine whether the defendant's rights have been pro......