Dannelley v. State
| Decision Date | 05 June 1901 |
| Parties | DANNELLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Coffee county; John P. Hubbard, Judge.
Bully Dannelley was convicted of assault with a weapon, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The material facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The judgment from which the present appeal is prosecuted recites: "Issue being joined on defendant's plea of not guilty, came a jury of lawful men, to wit *** who, being duly and legally impaneled and sworn according to law, say: 'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty, and assess a fine of twenty dollars."' There then follows a judgment of conviction.
John H Wilkerson, for appellant.
Chas G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Indictment assault with a pistol. Pleas not guilty, former jeopardy, and former conviction. Defendant convicted. Bill of exceptions purports to set out all the evidence. Much of it on each of the issues was oral. After setting out the evidence, the bill of exceptions proceeds: "Thereupon the defendant, among other charges, asked for the general affirmative charge in writing in his favor on his plea of former conviction and upon his plea of former jeopardy, which were refused by the court, and the defendant thereupon duly, legally, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each charge as requested." This is the only exception reserved on the trial, and it is not stated otherwise than as we have copied it. The charges to the refusal of which the exception was taken are not set out in the bill of exceptions. We cannot review a trial court's rulings upon charges requested unless the charges are transcribed into and made a part of, the bill of exceptions. We cannot take any mere statement of what they were which falls short of giving their very language. The wisdom and necessity of this rule is demonstrated in this case. The "general affirmative charge," strictly speaking, is without hypothesis, and imperatively directs the verdict; but in the common parlance of the bench and bar a charge with hypothesis, "if the jury believe the evidence they will find" so and so, is also known as "the general affirmative charge," though the phrase "with hypothesis" is often added in naming such an instruction. Hence it is that it cannot be said with certainty from the statement we have quoted whether the charges asked by defendant were with or without the hypothesis of the jury's belief of the evidence. As if to aid and perfect the bill of exceptions in the particular under consideration, somebody has pinned thereto a sealed envelope, across one of which is written: "Refused charges in State v. Bully Dannelley." We cannot look to this envelope or its contents for any purpose, and it has not been opened.
The record proper of the trial court, as shown in the transcript before us, contains and sets forth three pleas, viz. not guilty, former...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lokos v. State
...conditions. We are bound by the record and cannot consider statements in appellant's brief not supported by the record. Dannelley v. State, 130 Ala. 132, 30 So. 452; Walker v. State, 223 Ala. 294, 135 So. 438; Dockery v. State, 269 Ala. 564, 114 So.2d In Eaton v. State, Ala., 177 So.2d 444,......
-
Edwards v. State, 2 Div. 515
...appellate court is bound by the record and cannot consider contentions in appellant's brief not supported by the record. Dannelley v. State, 130 Ala. 132, 30 So. 452; Walker v. State, 223 Ala. 294, 135 So. 438; Dockery v. State, 269 Ala. 564, 114 So.2d 394. Thus this Court must conclude tha......
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Cook
...can look to the bill of exceptions to determine the issues; and, if we could, the bill of exceptions would not inform us. Dannelley v. State, 130 Ala. 135, 30 So. 452; Brinson v. Edwards, 94 Ala. 447, 10 So. McLendon v. Grice, 119 Ala. 513, 24 So. 846. We must therefore treat the case as be......
-
Baker v. State
...joined upon the plea of not guilty, which excludes any assumption that the issue was joined on the plea in abatement." In Dannelley v. State, 130 Ala. 132, 30 So. 452, of not guilty, former jeopardy, and former conviction were entered, and evidence was shown by the bill of exceptions to hav......