Griffin v. State

• Decision Date: 02 March 1907
• Parties: GRIFFIN v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

43 So. 197

150 Ala. 49

GRIFFIN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 2, 1907

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; S. L. Weaver, Judge.

Robert L. Griffin was convicted of assault with intent to murder and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The defendant was indicted for assaulting Colmer C. Hudson unlawfully and with malice aforethought, with the intent to murder him by cutting him with a knife. The evidence for the state tended to show that between 6 and 7 o'clock, on Saturday evening, June 24, 1905, Hudson, Kirby, and Corn were going up Second avenue in the city of Birmingham, and as they passed the Age-Herald's office the defendant was standing in the door of the office, spoke to the defendant, and asked him if he wanted to work on the Age-Herald that night. Defendant said that he had not seen Watkins, and that he wanted to see Hudson about what Watkins had said to Hudson. Hudson said to defendant, "I can take care of myself." Defendant replied, "That is to be tried for," ran his hand in his hip pocket, pulled out a knife, and cut at Hudson, and cut his throat on the left side. Hudson pushed him down, and he came back at Hudson and cut his throat. There was some conflict in the testimony as to what was said between the two, but the main facts testified to were substantially as given above. The defendant's testimony tended to show self-defense. The physician testified that Hudson was cut on the left side of the neck; the external and internal juvenile veins being cut.

The following charges were requested by the defendant, and refused: "(1) I charge you to acquit the defendant unless the evidence excludes every reasonable supposition but that of defendant's guilt." "(3) If there is a reasonable supposition of defendant's innocence, you must acquit him." "(5) If the jury, upon considering all the evidence, have a reasonable doubt about defendant's guilt, arising out of any part of the evidence, they must not find him guilty. (6) If the evidence or any part thereof, after a consideration of the whole of such evidence, generates a well-founded doubt of defendant's guilt, the jury must acquit him." "(11) Gentlemen of the jury, you should acquit the defendant, unless the evidence excludes every reasonable supposition but that of his guilt. (12) If there is generated in the minds of the jury, by the evidence in this case, or any part of the same, after a consideration of the whole of such evidence, a well-founded doubt of defendant's guilt then the jury must acquit him." "(19) Before the jury should convict the defendant, the hypothesis of his guilt should flow naturally from the facts proved and be consistent with all of them." "(21) It is the duty of the jury to consider the evidence tending to show a justifying motive, in connection with the other evidence in the case, and, if they are in reasonable doubt of his guilt they should acquit him." Charge 22 is set out on the opinion. "(25) Before the jury can convict the the defendant, they must be satisfied to a moral certainty, not only that the proof is consistent with the guilt of the defendant, but that it is wholly inconsistent with every other rational conclusion; and unless the jury are so convinced by the evidence of the defendant's guilt that they would each venture to act upon that decision in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest, they must find the defendant not guilty. (26) The court charges the jury, if the jury are not satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt, to a moral certainty, and...