Crisp v. State
| Citation | 215 Ala. 2,109 So. 287 |
| Decision Date | 01 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 605 |
| Parties | CRISP v. STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Petition of the State of Alabama, by its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Crisp v State, 109 So. 282. Writ granted; reversed and remanded.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen and Jim Davis, Sol., and Willard Drake, Asst. Sol., both of Birmingham, for the State.
H.C Wilkinson, of Birmingham, for defendant.
A majority of the court are of the opinion that the portion of the oral charge excepted to by the defendant, and upon which this cause was reversed by the Court of Appeals, was not reversible error. True, the portion excepted to omitted to state that the conduct of defendant must have been the proximate cause of the death of the deceased--a point as to which there seems to have been no serious controversy--but, looking to the entire oral charge and the defendant's given charges, which are a part of the record, we think there could have been no possible misunderstanding on the part of the jury that the defendant's conduct must have been the proximate cause of the death of the deceased in order to convict him.
We are of course aware of the fact that an erroneous statement of the law in the oral charge is not cured by a written one which corrects the error of the oral charge, but here the law as stated in the oral charge was correct, and it was at most incomplete in omitting or failing to emphasize the fact that the facts and law as hypothesized must have caused the death of the deceased and the written charges instructing the jury that this was essential to a conviction, was in no sense contradictory or inconsistent with any part of the oral charge.
The writ of certiorari is awarded, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to said court for a further consideration of same in conformity with this opinion.
Writ awarded; reversed and remanded.
The defendant was indicted and convicted of manslaughter in the second degree. Without approving all that was written by the Court of Appeals in either of the two concurring opinions in this case, we concur with that court in holding the trial court erred in its oral charge when it stated to the jury:
It invades the province of the jury. This charge ignored all questions as to the cause of the killing. The jury must believe beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that the unlawful act of the defendant was the cause of the death of Elmer Paul Jacobs before they could convict the defendant. The unlawful act done by him appears to have been the running of a car at a greater rate of speed than is permitted by an ordinance in the city of Birmingham. A violation of such an ordinance is negligence per se. A violation of it is made a criminal offense; but, before a person would be guilty of manslaughter in the second degree for its violation, it must appear from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation of the ordinance by the defendant occasioned caused the injury from which Jacobs died. The violation of the ordinance by the defendant may have had no causal connection with Jacobs' death. The act causing the death of decedent must be unlawful and the result unintentional to constitute the offense of manslaughter in the second degree. This court, in Mitchell v. State, 60 Ala. 33, clearly and correctly defined manslaughter in the second degree...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baugh v. State
...by the evidence in the minds of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Brilliant Coal Co. v. Barton, 205 Ala. 89, 87 So. 830; Crisp v. State, 215 Ala. 2, 109 So. 287. If should be conceded that the court was in error in sustaining the solicitor's objections to the questions put to the witness ......
-
State v. Budge
...Ill. 567, 151 N. E. 489; State v. McIvor, 1 W. W. Har. (31 Del.) 123, 111 A. 616; State v. Disalvo (Del. O. & T. 121 A. 661; Crisp v. State (Ala. Sup.) 109 So. 287; Dunville v. State, supra; Jackson v. State, 101 Ohio St. 152, 127 N. E. 870; People v. Barnes, 182 Mich. 179, 148 N. W. 400; P......
-
Evans v. State
...to find a person guilty of second degree manslaughter. Crisp v. State, 21 Ala.App. 449, 109 So. 282, reversed on other grounds, 215 Ala. 2, 109 So. 287 (1926). We conclude, however, that the jury in this case could reasonably find that appellant was driving while intoxicated. It is a violat......
-
Wilson v. State
... ... notwithstanding, after the ... [28 So.2d 649.] ... act was done, or while in progress, the defendant used ... ordinary care to prevent the taking of human life; not is the ... intention to take life necessary in a prosecution for this ... crime.' See, also, Crisp v. State, 215 Ala. 2, ... 3, 109 So. 287, and in connection therewith Crisp v ... State, 21 Ala.App. 449, 109 So. 282; Sawyer v ... State, 20 Ala.App. 504, 103 So. 309; Hammell v ... State, 21 Ala.App. 633, 111 So. 191 ... Appellant ... in brief of counsel cites Barnett v. State, ... ...