Forsythe v. State
| Decision Date | 20 May 1924 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 144. |
| Citation | 19 Ala.App. 669,100 So. 198 |
| Parties | FORSYTHE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; Chas. P. Almon, Judge.
Willie Forsythe was convicted of distilling, and appeals. Affirmed.
Bradshaw & Barnett, of Florence, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The verdict of the jury found the defendant guilty as charged in the first count of the indictment. This count charged that he did distill, make, or manufacture, alcoholic, spirituous, or malt liquors, etc., contrary to law.
No rulings of the court were invoked upon the testimony in this case, hence no exceptions were reserved in this connection.
Charges 3 and 4 refused to the defendant were properly refused.
At the conclusion of the court's oral charge, the transcript shows the following:
"The defendant excepts to that part of the charge to each and every word of the charge giving the definition of 'aid and abet."'
Whereupon through an abundance of caution the court stated:
Appellant here complains that this last statement is also erroneous but concedes the record fails to disclose that an exception was reserved thereto.
The court had the right, in fact it was its imperative duty, to withdraw any erroneous statement of the law given to the jury in his oral charge. Whether such statement was due to inadvertence, mistake, or otherwise, and error if any may be cured by a prompt withdrawal or retraction of the objectionable statement, or by an instruction to the jury to disregard such statement. Null v. State, 16 Ala. App. 542, 79 So. 678.
We pretermit the question of the correctness of the final definition of "aid and abet," as given by the court to the jury. The question is not presented. An exception is necessary for a review of an oral charge. Ex parte State ex rel., etc., Montgomery v. State, 204 Ala. 389, 85 So 785. Moreover, the exception reserved to the first statement of the court does not appear to meet the required rule; it was descriptive rather than specific....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State
...a still, but since no exception was reserved to this explanatory portion of the charge, nothing is presented for review. Forsythe v. State, 19 Ala.App. 669, 100 So. 198. The judgment of the trial court is Affirmed. ...
-
Favors v. State
...11 Ala.App. 95, 65 So. 427; Rigsby v. State, 152 Ala. 9, 44 So. 608; Cowart v. State, 16 Ala.App. 119, 75 So. 711; Forsythe v. State, 19 Ala.App. 669, 100 So. 198. Among the written charges requested and refused to appellant is the affirmative charge. Without doubt or uncertainty a jury que......
-
Sherman v. State
...portion with reference to unexplained possession.' The exceptions were not sufficiently specific to invite our review. Forsythe v. State, 19 Ala.App. 669, 100 So. 198; Brock v. State, 28 Ala.App. 52, 178 So. 547; J. R. Watkins Co. v. Goggans, 242 Ala. 222, 5 So.2d 472; Kelley v. State, 226 ......
-
Russell v. State, 7 Div. 115
...This is an exception by reference only and is not sufficiently specific to meet the demands of the reviewable rule. Forsythe v. State, 19 Ala.App. 669, 100 So. 198; Cowart v. State, 16 Ala.App. 119, 75 So. 711; J. R. Watkins Co. v. Goggans, 242 Ala. 222, 5 So.2d A question of very critical ......