Lester v. State, 1 Div. 878
Citation | 121 So.2d 110,270 Ala. 631 |
Decision Date | 02 June 1960 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 878 |
Parties | David E. LESTER v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Geo. D. Mentz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Harry Seale, Mobile, opposed.
David E. Lester was convicted of murder in the second degree and appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court reversed because of error in a portion of the oral charge of the trial court to which exception was reserved. The State now applies for certiorari and complains that the Court of Appeals erred because that court failed to consider the entire oral charge and also misconstrued the meaning of the phrase 'burden of proof.'
In brief the State quotes at length from Jones on Evidence (5th Edition), Vol. 1, §§ 204 and 205. A portion of the quoted text recites as follows:
That portion of the oral charge held erroneous by the Court of Appeals recites in part:
In brief, the State argues:
* * *'
We do not think a jury can be expected to understand that a trial court means one thing at one time when it says 'burden of proof' and a different thing at another time when the court again uses the identical phrase. We do not think the Court of Appeals has misconstrued the meaning of 'burden of proof.' See the cases cited in the opinion of that court.
The State insists that the portion of the oral charge held erroneous by the Court of Appeals was rendered innocuous by the following portion of the oral charge which immediately followed the portion excepted to and which was not set out by the Court of Appeals, to wit:
(Emphasis Supplied.)
We are not persuaded that the last quoted portion of the oral charge is itself a clear and correct statement of the law.
A plea of self-defense in a criminal trial is not an affirmative plea of confession and avoidance on which defendant has the burden of proof as he does on such a plea in a civil case. Because he who asserts must prove, the party who takes the affirmative of an issue has the burden of proof. On trial of an issue of fact, if the evidence is evenly balanced, the party on whom the burden of proof rests must lose. What is the duty of the jury if the evidence is evenly balanced on the issue of self-defense? This court has said:
'* * * we feel constrained, both upon principle and authority, to the conclusion that there is no greater burden upon the accused to establish self-defense, by affirmative evidence, than any other defense; but, if 'all the evidence raises in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to whether he acted in self-defense, the defendant should be acquitted.' * * *.' Henson v. State, 112 Ala. 41, 49, 21 So. 79, 81.
We are not unmindful that in McGhee v. State, 178 Ala. 4, 12, 59 So. 573, this court expressly overruled the holding in Henson v. State, supra, to the effect that refusal of charge 2 was error because the charge failed to set out the elements of self-defense, but in so doing the court said:
'* * * It is true the court reversed the case of Henson v. State, 112 Ala. 41, 21 South. 79, for the refusal of charge 2 which is similar to the charges now considered; but this holding is contrary to the cases supra, and, while we do not wish to disturb the legal principles as declared in the Henson Case, supra, we do expressly overrule same, in so far as it holds that the refusal of charge 2 was reversible error.' (Emphasis Supplied.) 178 Ala. 12, 59 So. 576.
This court has not departed from the rule that if from all the evidence the jury have a reasonable doubt whether defendant acted in self-defense the jury should acquit. In 1955 this court said:
'Charge No. 12 is as follows:
"I charge you that if, after looking at all the evidence in this case, your minds are left in such a state of doubt or uncertainty that you cannot say, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the Defendant acted upon a well-founded and reasonable belief that it was necessary to take the life of the deceased to save himself from great bodily harm or death, or that he stabbed before such impending necessity arose, then this is such a doubt as will entitle this Defendant to an acquittal, and you should so find.'
* * *
* * *
(Emphasis Supplied.) Brooks v. State, 263 Ala. 386, 389, 390, 82 So.2d 553, 555.
The following statements appear in the books:
Ragsdale v. State, 134 Ala. 24, 36, 32 So. 674, 677.
* * *. Clemons v. State, 167 Ala. 20, 33, 34, 52 So. 467, 472.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Atchley v. State
...minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant acted in self-defense, the defendant should be acquitted. Lester v. State, 270 Ala. 631, 121 So.2d 110; Pounders v. State, 282 Ala. 551, 213 So.2d See Tucker v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 383 So.2d 579, cert. denied, Ala., 383 So.2d ......
-
Davis v. State
...felony) beyond a reasonable doubt. Code 1940, T. 7, § 273; Crane v. State, 111 Ala. 45, 20 So. 590 (re: refused charge 2); Lester v. State, Ala. [631,] 121 So.2d 110 (burden of proof never shifts). The so-called need for the defendant's explaining his presence (in the circumstances posited)......
-
Harris v. State
...in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Key v. State, 47 Ala.App. 692, 260 So.2d 422 (1972); Lester v. State, 270 Ala. 631, 121 So.2d 110 (1960). Whether or not the appellant was justified in killing the deceased was, under the evidence, for the jury to determine. The e......
-
Owen v. State
...and it is conceded by the State, that this portion of the oral charge states an incorrect proposition of law. See Lester v. State, 270 Ala. 631, 121 So.2d 110 (1960); Howard v. State, 390 So.2d 1070 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 390 So.2d 1077 (Ala.1980). However, this error was harmless und......