Elmore v. State
| Decision Date | 25 June 1891 |
| Citation | 92 Ala. 51,9 So. 600 |
| Parties | ELMORE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Bullock county; J. M. CARMICHAEL, Judge.
Watts & Son, for appellant.
Wm. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. The indictment charges that "Nep Elmore, with intent to injure or defraud, did falsely make, alter, forge, or counterfeit" an instrument in writing, which is set out. There was evidence from which the jury might have reached the conclusion that, while defendant did not himself write the instrument, he did procure another to write it, and uttered it as genuine. This would have supported the indictment, and the first charge requested for the defendant to the effect that the jury should acquit the defendant, unless they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that he wrote the paper was well refused. 3 Greenl. Ev. § 104; Gooden v State, 55 Ala. 178.
2. The second charge asked by the defendant should, in our opinion have been given. It is as follows: "That the jury should carefully examine the whole of the testimony, and that if, upon the whole evidence, the minds of the jury are left in a state of doubt and uncertainty, so that they cannot reasonably say that the defendant is guilty, they should acquit him." We do not think this charge was confusing or misleading in its tendencies. We cannot see how it can be understood otherwise than as asserting that, if the minds of the jury are left in a state of such doubt and uncertainty as that they cannot reasonably say the defendant is guilty, they should acquit him,-the state of doubt and uncertainty being qualified by what follows in the sentence so as to make it that condition of mind which would prevent the jury from reasonably reaching the conclusion of guilt. It is the same, indeed, as if the proposition had been declared, without reference to doubt and uncertainty in this form. If, upon a consideration of the whole evidence, the minds of the jury are left in such state as they cannot reasonably reach the conclusion that the defendant is guilty, they should acquit him. "If the charge has a fault, it lies in its being too favorable to the state. The law is that not only must the jury have justifying reasons for a conclusion of guilt,-not only must they be able to say upon reason that the defendant is guilty,-but their conclusion to this effect must be so reasonable to their minds as to exclude all reasonable doubts of its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniels v. State
...... charge. . . . Refused charge 7 was held bad in Wilson v. State,. Ala.Sup., 8 So.2d 422, 439; [243 Ala. 683] Ex parte. Davis et al., 184 Ala. 26, 63 So. 1010; McDowell v. State, 238 Ala. 101, 189 So. 183. . . Refused. charge 8 was held good in Elmore v. State, 92 Ala. 51, 9 So. 600; Browning v. State, 28 Ala.App. 129,. 131, 180 So. 105; Gilbert v. State, 20 Ala.App. 565,. 104 So. 45. This is another way of charging on reasonable. doubt and this was fully and fairly covered by the oral. charge. . . . Refused charge 9 was dealt ......
-
Shikles v. State
......We. discuss them in the order arranged by counsel in brief and. argument. . . . Refused charge 1 has been approved (Gilbert v. State, 20 Ala.App. 565, 104 So. 45), but it is nothing. more than an instruction on reasonable doubt (Elmore v. State, 92 Ala. 51, 9 So. 600). The trial court charged. at length, and correctly, upon this phase of the law, and we. think, and hold, the charge was fairly and substantially. covered. Under the rule now prevailing, a reversal for its. refusal would be unwarranted. Code 1940, Title 7, ......
-
Browning v. State
......State, 133 Ala. 38, 31 So. 951. But the. refusal of this charge does not constitute reversible error,. by reason of the fact that it is covered by written charges. 14, 15, 18, and 24, given at the request of the defendant. . . Refused. charge 17 was held to be good in Elmore v. State, 92. Ala. 51, 9 So. 600, and Gilbert v. State, 20. Ala.App. 565, 104 So. 45. But this charge is only another way. of saying that before the jury can convict the defendant they. must be satisfied as to his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On this point the court fully and explicitly ......
-
Bufford v. State
......But we find in the. record numerous special written charges, refused to. defendant, which should have been given and to which he was. entitled. . . Refused. charge 10 should have been given. Gilbert v. State,. 20 Ala. App. 565, 104 So. 45; Elmore v. State, 92. Ala. 51, 9 So. 600. . . Charge. 11 properly stated the law. This charge has been fully. approved in the cases of Olden v. State, 176 Ala. 6,. 58 So. 307; Bailey v. State, 168 Ala. 4, 53 So. 296,. 390. . . Under. authority of Gainey v. State, 141 Ala. 73, ......