Hatch v. State
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | DENSON, J. |
| Citation | 144 Ala. 50,40 So. 113 |
| Decision Date | 08 February 1906 |
| Parties | HATCH v. STATE. |
40 So. 113
144 Ala. 50
HATCH
v.
STATE.
Supreme Court of Alabama
February 8, 1906
Appeal from City Court of Mobile; O. J. Semmes, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Alfred Hatch was convicted of an assault with intent to commit murder, and he appeals. Reversed.
Charge 18, requested by the defendant and refused, is in the following words: "The defendant sets up an alibi in this case, and the burden of proof is not changed when he undertakes to prove it; and if, by reason of the evidence in relation to such alibi, you should entertain a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, he should be acquitted, although you may not be able to find that the alibi has been fully proven."
Denson and Dowdell, JJ., dissenting.
Foster K. Hale and Leslie B. Sheldon, for appellant.
Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
DENSON, J.
It is not made to appear by the record that any question was raised in the city court as to the organization of the grand jury which found the indictment. Therefore, under the express provisions of section 4325 of the Code of 1896, it is not necessary that the transcript should show the organization of the grand jury which found the indictment. Tipton's Case, 140 Ala. 39, 37 So. 231.
Charge 18, refused to the defendant, is the same as charge 47 which was refused in the case of Pickens v. State, 115 Ala. 42, 22 So. 551. In the Pickens Case it was held that the refusal of the charge was error. The only comment made by the court on the charge was in this language: "The instruction numbered 47, in relation to the burden of proving an alibi, and the degree of evidence supporting it, is in accordance with the principles stated in Prince v. State, 100 Ala. 144, 14 So. 409, 46 Am. St. Rep. 28, and should have been given." In the Prince Case, the court charged the jury "that the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish his alibi and that it must be done to your satisfaction." The court, through Coleman, J., said of the charge that the proof exacted of the defendant was too high, in that it omitted the word "reasonable." Said the court: "If the jury were reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the defendant was elsewhere, and not at the place where the offense was committed, at the time it was committed, the burden cast upon him by the law is fully met. The defense of alibi is as legitimate and effective as any other, and whenever the evidence introduced supports this defense, and its effect is to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury of the defendant's guilt, he is as much entitled to an acquittal as if the reasonable doubt had been created or produced by any other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ragsdale v. State, 693
...portions of the testimony. Shelton v. State, 144 Ala. 106, 42 So. 30. Charge No. 12 is in the same language as a charge in Hatch's Case, 144 Ala. 50, 40 So. 113, except in the use of the words "self-defense" in place of the word "alibi" as used in the charge approved in ......
-
Scott v. State, 8 Div. 540.
...be omitted from the transcript." Mr. Justice Denson, the author of the opinion in the Morris Case, supra, observed in Hatch v. State, 144 Ala. 50, 51, 40 So. 113, that under the express provisions of section 4325 of the Code (1896), it was not necessary that the transcript should show ......
-
Ragland v. State, 5 Div. 304.
...have been given." The same charge treated in the Pickens case, supra, was again considered by the full court in Hatch v. State, 144 Ala. 50, 40 So. 113. The majority sustained the charge as a correct proposition of law, and held its refusal reversible error. We note the minority opinio......
-
Spencer v. State, 5 Div. 166.
...should acquit. Johnson v. State, 223 Ala. 332, 135 So. 592; Prince v. State, 100 Ala. 144, 14 So. 409, 46 Am. St. Rep. 28; Hatch v. State, 144 Ala. 50, 40 So. 113. Charge 5, if for no other reason, was properly refused, for its failure to require a consideration of all the evidence in deter......
-
Ragsdale v. State, 693
...portions of the testimony. Shelton v. State, 144 Ala. 106, 42 So. 30. Charge No. 12 is in the same language as a charge in Hatch's Case, 144 Ala. 50, 40 So. 113, except in the use of the words "self-defense" in place of the word "alibi" as used in the charge approved in Hatch's Case. An ali......
-
Scott v. State, 8 Div. 540.
...be omitted from the transcript." Mr. Justice Denson, the author of the opinion in the Morris Case, supra, observed in Hatch v. State, 144 Ala. 50, 51, 40 So. 113, that under the express provisions of section 4325 of the Code (1896), it was not necessary that the transcript should show the o......
-
Ragland v. State, 5 Div. 304.
...and should have been given." The same charge treated in the Pickens case, supra, was again considered by the full court in Hatch v. State, 144 Ala. 50, 40 So. 113. The majority sustained the charge as a correct proposition of law, and held its refusal reversible error. We note the minority ......
-
Spencer v. State, 5 Div. 166.
...should acquit. Johnson v. State, 223 Ala. 332, 135 So. 592; Prince v. State, 100 Ala. 144, 14 So. 409, 46 Am. St. Rep. 28; Hatch v. State, 144 Ala. 50, 40 So. 113. Charge 5, if for no other reason, was properly refused, for its failure to require a consideration of all the evidence in deter......