Carter v. State

• Decision Date: 13 June 1889
• Citation: 6 So. 356,87 Ala. 113
• Parties: CARTER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

6 So. 356

87 Ala. 113

CARTER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 13, 1889

Appeal from county court, Jackson county; R. SCOTT PARKS, Special Judge.

W. A B. Carter was indicted for an assault on a young lady pleaded not guilty to the charge, but was convicted, and fined one cent. The evidence showed that the defendant, on the day of the assault, had been drinking all the morning and was very drunk; that as the young lady passed him on the street, where he was sitting down, he got up and staggered after her, extending his hands, and declaring, with an oath his intention to have intercourse with her; that she screamed and jumped aside, and he fell on his face, and was picked up by the town marshal, who was standing some distance off. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that the defendant mistook the young lady for a common prostitute of the town, to whom he paid some money in the morning, and who had invited him to follow her; but the defendant, testifying on his own behalf, said that he was too drunk to remember anything about the assault. The court charged the jury, among other things, as follows: "To constitute an assault there must be an attempt, though interrupted, to inflict personal violence; and the jury may look to the evidence to determine whether or not the defendant intended to commit an assault. The law looks to the intention to determine the guilt of persons; and it always maintains that a person cannot be guilty who has an innocent mind. If the jury believe that the defendant intended to inflict personal violence on another person, but was mistaken in the person, that will not excuse him. If the jury believe that he had a reckless disregard, and did not care whom he dealt with, that will not excuse him. If he intended to, violate forcibly the person of a prostitute, that will not excuse him; but the jury may look to the evidence [to determine] whether or not he intended an assault. The fact that the defendant was in a state of intoxication cannot excuse him." To each of these parts of the general charge of the court the defendant duly excepted.

W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SOMERVILLE J.

It is unquestionably the law that if the defendant intended to inflict personal violence on another person than the one assaulted, a mere mistake in the identity of the person would not excuse him. It was no justification of the assault charged in this case that the...