Hurd v. State

• Decision Date: 04 February 1892
• Citation: 10 So. 528,94 Ala. 100
• Parties: HURD v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

10 So. 528

94 Ala. 100

HURD v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 4, 1892

Appeal from circuit court, Pike county; JOHN P. HUBBARD, Judge.

Indictment of Gus Hurd for petit larceny. Verdict and judgment of conviction. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

The defendant in this case was indicted, tried, and convicted for petit larceny, for stealing four silver dollars. The testimony for the state tended to show that the defendant took from one John Hobdy, without his consent, while he held it out in his hand, the money alleged to have been stolen and that he refused to give up the same, although requested to do so. The testimony for the defendant tended to prove an alibi, and that he did not see the said John Hobdy on the night the money was alleged to have been taken. The defendant requested the court to give the following written charges, and duly excepted to the refusal to give each of them: (1) "If the jury believe the evidence for the defendant, they should find him not guilty." (2) "All of the witnesses stand as persons of good character and credible, unless impeached, or have their characters shown to be bad by proof." (3) "If the jury, upon considering all of the testimony, have a reasonable doubt about defendant's guilt, arising out of any part of the evidence, they should find him not guilty." (4) "If the jury believe that the prosecutor has worn falsely in some matters, this should tend to weaken his testimony."

Robert L. Harmon, for appellant.

Wm. I. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

STONE C.J.

It is certainly the duty of the jury in pronouncing on issues submitted to them, to consider and weigh all the testimony in the case. This does not mean that all or any of it shall be believed. The law exacts no such rule as that. It must be considered, and given such weight as the manner of giving it in, its intrinsic nature, and the other testimony in the cause, entitle it to. This much, and nothing more. This the jury must and will do, as the only way of performing their highest, sworn duty of rendering a true verdict according to the evidence. And the jury would be derelict if a segregated part of the testimony were made the basis of a verdict without at least considering what influence should be accorded to other testimony in the cause. A finding of the jury based on any other principles would not come up to what the word "verdict" implies,- veredictum, a true saying. It would not be the...