Ex parte State ex rel. Atty. Gen.

• Decision Date: 15 November 1923
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 433.
• Citation: Ex parte State ex rel. Atty. Gen., 97 So. 903, 210 Ala. 320 (Ala. 1923)
• Parties: EX PARTE STATE EX REL. ATTY. GEN. BAKER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

97 So. 903

210 Ala. 320

EX PARTE STATE EX REL. ATTY. GEN. BAKER v. STATE.

7 Div. 433.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 15, 1923

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Ellis Baker, having been convicted of an offense, appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the judgment of conviction being by that court reversed, and the cause remanded, the State of Alabama, on the relation of its Attorney General, petitions for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision there rendered in the case styled Ellis Baker v. State, 97 So. 901. Writ denied.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Tate &amp Logan, of Anniston, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

By this petition the state seeks to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in Baker v. State, 97 So. 901, only in two particulars. The first relates to the ruling that charge 2, refused to defendant, should have been given. The Court of Appeals is sustained by the case of Brown v. State, 118 Ala. 111, 23 So. 81, approving charge 6.

It may be seriously questioned, however, that the refusal of such a charge would constitute reversible error, in view of the subsequent decisions of this court condemning charges of similar character as technically bad for not resting the hypothesis of innocence upon the evidence in the case. Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179 commenting upon refused charge 4; Davis v. State, 188 Ala. 59, 66 So. 67. See, also, Minor v. State, 15 Ala. App. 556, 74 So. 98.

We therefore prefer to rest denial of the writ upon the second ruling here complained of, relating to the inadmissibility of evidence as to acts of the defendant a week or more subsequent to the alleged commission of the offense for which he was being prosecuted. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this evidence did not...