Cotton v. State
| Decision Date | 20 June 1889 |
| Parties | COTTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Pike county; JOHN P. HUBBARD, Judge.
John Cotton was indicted and tried for larceny of a steer. Defendant was sworn and examined on his own request, and refused to deny that he took the steer, or that he sold it to one Beasley. In his argument to the jury the solicitor commented on the fact that defendant had failed to make the above denial. Defendant requested the following charge "Unless the jury are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant by the other evidence in the case, except the evidence of his refusal to deny the charge then the defendant is not guilty." The court refused to give this charge, and the defendant excepted, and appealed.
W L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Where a defendant in a criminal prosecution elects to become a witness in his own behalf, as he may do under the statute, he waives the constitutional guaranty which protects him from answering questions touching the merits of the case which may tend to criminate him. He may be examined by the state as to all material facts pertinent to his guilt, and his failure to explain or rebut any criminating fact, where he reasonably can do so, is a circumstance which may be considered by the jury as prejudicial to his innocence. This being so, it is clear in reason that his silence or refusal to testify as to such fact may become the subject of legitimate criticism on the part of the state's counsel, just as the testimony of any other witness may be under like circumstances; and the guilt or innocence of the defendant is to be determined on the entire evidence, including the testimony of the defendant himself. The authorities fully sustain this view. Clarke v. State, ante, 368, (decided at the present term;) Stover v. People, 56 N.Y. 315; State v. White, 27 Amer. Rep. 137, note 144; Whart, Crim. Ev. (9th Ed.) §§ 432, 433; Clarke v. State, 78 Ala. 474.
It is only where the defendant fails to become a witness at all, or to request to become one, that section 4473 of the Code affords him any protection against the criticism of counsel. In such event, his failure to become a witness is not allowed to create any unfavorable presumption against him, nor to be the subject of any comment by counsel. Crim. Code 1886, § 4473.
The charge requested by the defendant was based on the false idea...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gobble v. State, No. CR-05-0225 (Ala. Crim. App. 2/5/2010)
...118 So. 506 (1928); Carpenter v. State, 193 Ala. 51, 69 So. 531 (1915); Kelley v. State, 160 Ala. 48, 49 So. 535 (1909); Cotton v. State, 87 Ala. 103, 6 So. 372 (1889). A defendant who has introduced himself as a witness may be cross examined and compelled to do what would be material and c......
-
Gobble v. State
...So. 506 (1928); Carpenter v. State, 193 Ala. 51, 69 So. 531 (1915); [ Kelly ] v. State, 160 Ala. 48, 49 So. 535 (1909); Cotton v. State, 87 Ala. 103, 6 So. 372 (1889). A defendant who has introduced himself as a witness may be cross examined and compelled to do what would be material and co......
-
Smith v. State
...So. 506 (1928) ; Carpenter v. State, 193 Ala. 51, 69 So. 531 (1915) ; Kelly v. State, 160 Ala. 48, 49 So. 535 (1909) ; Cotton v. State, 87 Ala. 103, 6 So. 372 (1889). A defendant who has introduced himself as a witness may be cross-examined and compelled to do what would be material and com......
- Parrish v. State