Carroll v. State
| Decision Date | 28 May 1901 |
| Citation | 130 Ala. 99,30 So. 394 |
| Parties | CARROLL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; W. H. Thomas, Judge.
Henry Carroll was indicted for an assault with intent to murder and was convicted of an assault, and appeals. Reversed.
The evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged in the indictment, that he fired his pistol at the persons named in the indictment. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that he did not shoot the pistol as testified to by the witness for the state. During the examination of one Tillman as a witness for the defendant, he testified that he told the defendant he had better not say anything to the persons alleged in the indictment to have been assaulted, while he, the defendant passed them on the road. This witness was then asked what did "Mr. C. S. Collier [one of the men referred to by the witness] tell you before you had this conversation with the defendant"? The solicitor objected to this question, the court sustained the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf testified to his having been arrested by the men who he was charged with having shot at. He further testified that these men shot him before he was arrested. Thereupon the defendant's counsel asked him the following question "What did they then do with you" after they had arrested you? The court sustained the state's objection to this question, and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked:
Hill & Hill, for appellant.
Chas. G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.
In Bell v. State, 115 Ala. 25, 22 So. 526, a charge containing propositions identical with those asserted by the second charge requested by the defendant in this case was held to be correct. On the authority of Bell's Case the judgment must be reversed for error in refusing said second charge.
The first charge requested by defendant was calculated to mislead the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pointer v. State, 8 Div. 406
...and gave its full endorsement thereof as being true.' The court likewise erred in refusing defendant's requested charge 11. Carroll v. State, 130 Ala. 99, 30 So. 394; Davis v. State, 131 Ala. 10, 31 So. 569; Smith v. State, 165 Ala. 74, 51 So. 632; Richardson v. State, 33 Ala.App. 40, 29 So......
-
Fitch v. State, 8 Div. 173
...that the refusal of Charge 12 was reversible error, appellant relies upon Bell v. State, 115 Ala. 25, 22 So. 526 (1897); Carroll v. State, 130 Ala. 99, 30 So. 394 (1901); Smith v. State, 165 Ala. 74, 51 So. 632 (1910); Richardson v. State, 33 Ala.App. 40, 29 So.2d 883 (1947); and Pointer v.......
-
Rogers v. State
... ... house and reloaded his pistol; nor was the fact that the ... witness told the defendant of this conduct on the part of the ... deceased material. Allsup v. State, 72 So. 599; ... Hickman v. State, 12 Ala.App. 22, 67 So. 775; ... Smith v. State, 183 Ala. 10, 62 So. 864; Carroll ... v. State, 130 Ala. 99, 30 So. 394; Teague v ... State, 144 Ala. 42, 40 So. 312 ... While ... the testimony of Dr. Horn tended to show that the immediate ... cause of the deceased's death was peritonitis, it also ... tended to show that this condition was caused by one of the ... ...
-
Caraway v. State
...in the Olden Case, supra, and in many decisions of the Supreme Court. Bailey v. State, 168 Ala. 4, 53 So. 298, 390; Carroll v. State, 130 Ala. 99, 30 So. 394. charge reads in part as follows: "If the jury are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty and to the exclusion ......