Griffin v. State
| Decision Date | 21 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 655. |
| Parties | GRIFFIN ET AL. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1938.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; W. W. Callahan, Judge.
W. D alias Doris, Griffin and Bennie Griffin were convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and they appeal.
Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Griffin v. State (8 Div 940) 184 So. 208.
W. H Long, of Decatur, and Wm. C. Rayburn, of Guntersville, for appellants.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Clarence M. Small, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Insistences are made by the appellants that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the great weight of the evidence, and that the defendants were entitled to the affirmative charge on the theory that the evidence for the State was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence, or, if not that, the verdict should be set aside on account of the great preponderance of the evidence favoring the defendants.
Neither of these contentions are tenable. The evidence for the State if believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, was sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence and to sustain the verdict of guilt.
Upon the second proposition; we have examined the testimony as shown by this record, and we do not find that it presents any justification for interference on our part. The questions were plainly for the jury, and it was for them to say what weight should be given the testimony of the witnesses, who were examined ore tenus before them.
The homicide grew out of a mutual rencounter between W. D. Griffin and the deceased within the curtilage of the dwelling of Griffin. The facts leading up to the difficulty were fully gone into and testified to by eye witnesses. The rulings of the court on the admission of this testimony were free from prejudicial error.
The appellants insist that the court committed reversible error in refusing to give at their request charge 2. This charge is similar to charge 27 in Davis v. State, 214 Ala. 273, 107 So. 737, in which the Supreme Court, speaking through Sayre, Judge, said (page 741): "It was defective, as this court has often held, because it omitted to state that the belief of necessity to kill must be honestly entertained as well as reasonable." This may be a narrow view to take of the charge, but the decision in the Davis Case, supra, has been followed in many cases in the Supreme Court, the last of which being Ex parte State, ex rel. Attorney General, (John H. Bragg, alias, v. State of Alabama, 183 So. 682), in which the Supreme Court, speaking through Gardner, Judge, said: Following the cases cited there, and other cases of similar import, we hold that charge 2 was properly refused.
Refused charge 5 is bad for the reasons as above set out. In addition to them, the charge pretermits a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, 6 Div. 238
... ... 583; Fowler v ... State, 236 Ala. 87, 181 So. 266; Smith v ... State, 243 Ala. 254, 11 So.2d 471. We will not laden ... this opinion by citing the great number of cases decided by ... this court in which the charge in question was disapproved ... This ... court in Griffin et al v. State, 28 Ala.App. 314, ... 184 So. 206, condemned a charge similar to Charge 16 in the ... case at bar. We approve that holding ... [33 ... Ala.App. 105] We hold, also, that Charge 20 was properly ... refused because of its argumentative tendencies. Welden ... v. State, ... ...
-
Cook v. State
...in bringing on the affair which resulted in the death of John Mancil. Sanders v. State, 243 Ala. 691, 11 So.2d 740; Griffin v. State, 28 Ala.App. 314, 184 So. 206, certiorari denied 236 Ala. 584, 184 So. Charge 16 was condemned in Gipson v. State 262 Ala. 229, 78 So.2d 293. Charge 6 is abst......
-
May v. State, 8 Div. 749
...Charges 4 and 6 are invasive of the province of the jury. The propriety of the refusal of charge 9 is illustrated in: Griffin v. State, 28 Ala.App. 314, 184 So. 206; Parsons v. State, 32 Ala.App. 266, 25 So.2d 44; Brown v. State, 33 Ala.App. 97, 31 So.2d 670; Hall v. State, 34 Ala.App. 246,......
-
Parsons v. State
... ... instruction of the duty to retreat. Prince v. State, ... 215 Ala. 276, 110 So. 407; Jones v. State, 20 ... Ala.App. 660, 104 So. 771 ... Charge ... J, refused to the defendant, is almost in exact language as ... Charge No. 5, which was condemned in Griffin v ... State, 28 Ala.App. 314, 184 So. 506 ... Under ... the established rules that are the guides to our appellate ... courts, we cannot charge error to the primary court in ... overruling appellant's motion for a new trial ... Freeman v. State, 30 Ala.App. 99, 1 So.2d 917; ... ...