Lambeth v. State
Decision Date | 17 August 1979 |
Citation | 380 So.2d 923 |
Parties | Ex parte State of Alabama. In re: John Hilton LAMBETH v. STATE of Alabama. 78-318. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Mary Jane LeCroy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Thomas M. Haas, Mobile, for respondent.
We granted the writ of certiorari in this case to review the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals which reversed defendant's conviction of assault and battery because the trial court refused to give his requested written charges one and five:
The appellate court found that defendant's requested charges one and five were not covered in other given written charges or in the court's oral charge. It reversed, citing Rakestraw v. State, 211 Ala. 535, 101 So. 181 (1924). We are compelled to reverse in light of King v. State, 356 So.2d 1220 (Ala. 1978) and Dillard v. State, 371 So.2d 947 (Ala. 1979).
In this case, the trial court in its oral instruction to the jury, stated, among other things, the following:
* * * "(Emphasis added).
In King, supra, this court recognized there were inconsistencies in previous decisions and opinions of this court concerning refusal of charges on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capote v. State
... ... State , 155 So. 3d 1048, 1087 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). In addressing this same claim in Floyd v. State , 289 So. 3d 337 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017), this Court stated: "In Lambeth v. State , 380 So. 2d 923 (Ala. 1979), the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the refusal of requested charges that reasonable doubt may arise from part of the evidence where the trial court instructed the jury that reasonable doubt could be based on the evidence produced at trial or the lack of evidence ... ...
-
Yarber v. State
... ... The charges were either covered substantially by the trial court's oral charge, were abstract, were confusing and misleading, were ungrammatical, were not hypothesized on a "belief from the evidence," contained more than one legal principle, or were incorrect statements of law. Lambeth v. State, 380 So.2d 923 (Ala.1979); Wilbanks v. State, 289 Ala. 171, 266 So.2d 632 (1972); Gaston v. State, 359 So.2d 1170 (Ala.Cr.App.1978); Harris v. State, 358 So.2d 482 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 487 (Ala.1978); Hudson v. State, 335 So.2d 208 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 335 ... ...
-
Acres v. State
... ... We find, as argued by the attorney general, that the trial court did not err in refusing this requested charge, for it was substantially and fairly covered elsewhere in the court's charge. See Lambeth v. State, 380 So.2d 923 (Ala.1979) ... As mandated by A.R.A.P. 45A, this court is to "notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review ... and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the ... ...
-
Moore v. State
... ... Ala.Code § 12-16-13 (1975). See also Campbell v. State, 423 So.2d 284 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); Lambeth v. State, 380 So.2d 923 (Ala.1979); Williams v. State, 451 So.2d 411 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) ... We have reviewed the refused charge and find that it was fully covered in the trial court's oral charge to the jury. Therefore, there is no basis of error to reversal on this issue ... ...