Hodges v. State, 3 Div. 127
Citation | 155 So.2d 533,42 Ala.App. 147 |
Decision Date | 28 June 1963 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 127 |
Parties | E. H. HODGES v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Henry J. Harper, Montgomery, for appellant.
Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of a violation of Title 14, Sec. 234(4), the 'bad check' law.
During his oral charge the court read to the jury, Section 234(5), which provides that the refusal of the drawee bank to pay the check shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud, and of knowledge of insufficient funds.
The court then instructed the jury as follows:
Counsel duly reserved an exception to this portion of the oral charge.
The court's charge was an incorrect statement of the law. In Segars v. State, 86 Ala. 59, 5 So. 558, the court said:
'* * * In a criminal case, a prima facie case of guilt does not generally rebut the presumption of innocence, or shift the burden of proof.'
See also, Wilson v. State, 20 Ala.App. 62, 100 So. 914; Slayton v. State, 27 Ala.App. 422, 173 So. 632; Woodall v. State, 29 Ala.App. 75, 191 So. 407.
As was said in Robertson v. State, 36 Ala.App. 117, 53 So.2d 575:
Since the judgment must be reversed because of the error pointed out herein, we pretermit consideration of other points argued in appellant's brief. They are not likely to arise in the event of another trial.
Reversed and remanded.
CATES, J., not sitting.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eldridge v. State
...required to establish his innocence by exculpatory evidence." Segars v. State, 86 Ala. 59, 60, 5 So. 558 (1888); Hodges v. State, 42 Ala.App. 147, 148, 155 So.2d 533 (1963). This statutory inference does not shift the burden of proof to the defendant. Coats v. State, 257 Ala. 406, 60 So.2d ......
-
Richardson v. State
... ... (3) A failure to consummate the larceny. This third element is as important ... ...
- Cochran v. State, 4 Div. 172