Croft v. State
| Decision Date | 28 January 1892 |
| Citation | 10 So. 517,95 Ala. 3 |
| Parties | CROFT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Etowah county; JOHN B. TALLY, Judge.
Prosecution against Will Croft. From a judgment of conviction defendant appeals. Reversed.
Wm. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The only exception reserved on the trial below goes to the refusal of the court to give the following charge, requested by defendant: There can be no doubt that the abstract proposition involved in this request is a sound one. Under the ruling in the case of Williams v. State, 52 Ala. 411, however, this charge would be condemned, as being confusing, in that it fails to enlighten the jury as to the meaning of the expression "probability of innocence." In that case the trial court refused to instruct the jury that "if, from all the evidence, there is a probability of the innocence of the defendants, the jury must find them not guilty;" and this court, holding that the refusal was proper, said "It [the charge] would have involved the jury in doubt and uncertainty, unless it had been carefully explained to them what was intended by 'a probability of innocence."' But in the subsequent case of Bain v. State, 74 Ala. 38, Williams' Case was overruled as to the point under consideration, and it was held that a charge requested by the defendant to the effect that "a probability of defendant's innocence is a just foundation for a reasonable doubt of his guilt, and therefore for his acquittal," should have been given. Reaffirming Bain's Case, our conclusion must be that there is nothing in the phrase "probability of innocence," as employed in the present case, which involves a tendency to confuse the jury, and that the request is not objectionable on that ground. Nor can it be contended that any other term or phrase of the proposed instruction was of a character to require explanation to avoid confusing the jury. So that when taken as a whole, we are unable to perceive that the request belonged to that class of charges which is condemned in Railroad Co. v. Hall, 87 Ala. 723, 6 South. Rep 277, as being ambiguous, involved, and metaphysical. The only other possible objection to it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stokley v. State
...checkered career in our cases. In the early cases it was held that the refusal of such a charge constituted reversible error. Croft v. State, 95 Ala. 3, 10 So. 517; Whitaker v. State, 106 Ala. 30, 17 So. 456; Morris v. State, 146 Ala. 66, 41 So. 274. However, the more recent decisions of th......
-
Clayton v. State
... ... State, 19 Ala. App ... 437, 97 So. 901; Brown v. State, 118 Ala. 111, 23 ... So. 81; Gregory v. State, 140 Ala. 16, 37 So. 259; ... Howard v. State, 151 Ala. 22, 44 So. 95. Refused ... charge 34 was held to be good in Stewart v. State, ... 133 Ala. 105, 31 So. 944; Croft v. State, 95 Ala. 3, ... 10 So. 517 ... Refused ... charge 38 is held to be a good charge in Olden v ... State, 176 Ala. 6, 58 So. 307; Bell v. State, ... 115 Ala. 25, 22 So. 526. Refused charges 42 and 43 are held ... to be good in Gregg v. State, 106 Ala. 44, 17 So ... ...
-
Walker v. State
...checkered career in our cases. In the early cases it was held that the refusal of such a charge constituted reversible error. Croft v. State, 95 Ala. 3, 10 So. 517; Whitaker v. State, 106 Ala. 30, 17 So. 456; Morris v. State, 146 Ala. 66, 41 So. 274. However, the more recent decisions of th......
-
May v. State, 8 Div. 749
...608, 20 So.2d 885, and Bankhead v. State, supra. We again approve the refusal of this instruction. Charge 25 was approved in Croft v. State, 95 Ala. 3, 10 So. 517, Stewart v. State, 133 Ala. 105, 31 So. 944, and Clayton v. State, 23 Ala.App. 150, 123 So. 250. The Supreme Court reviewed the ......