Lewis v. State
| Decision Date | 17 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 186 |
| Citation | 22 Ala.App. 108,113 So. 88 |
| Parties | LEWIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; H.P. Heflin, Judge.
Phillip Lewis was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
G.C. Boner, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was indicted for the offense of murder in the first degree, tried, and convicted of the offense of manslaughter in the first degree. His punishment was fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of ten years.
All the evidence tended to show that defendant killed the deceased by a shot from a pistol, which shot was aimed at or for one Flennoy, with whom defendant was engaged in a difficulty. This being the case, defendant's guilt or innocence is to be determined solely on the proposition of whether or not he would have been blameless had the shot killed Flennoy, for whom it was intended. Gilbert v. State, 20 Ala.App. 28, 100 So. 566.
The trial court's full and comprehensive oral charge was based, pertinently, on this principle, and the same, in connection with the numerous written charges given at appellant's request, seems to cover every phase of the law applicable. This in itself is a sufficient justification for the refusal of each of the written charges which stated a correct proposition of applicable law indorsed "Refused" in the record.
The trial court fully cured in his oral charge any error he may have committed in his remarks to counsel for defendant upon the presentation by him to the court of defendant's requested written charges.
It was not error to put the defendant to trial with the presence of only 32 jurors. Code 1923, § 8646.
We have searched the record and the bill of exceptions in accordance with our statutory duty, and fail to find anywhere prejudicial error committed by the trial court in the conduct of the trial of appellant.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gettings v. State
... ... innocence would be determinable on the inquiry, whether or ... not the defendant would have been justified and excusable in ... his act had he shot and killed James King, the person for ... whom his fire was intended. Winton v. State, 229 ... Ala. 642, 159 So. 62; Lewis v. State, 22 Ala.App ... 108, 113 So. 88; Bush v. State, 23 Ala.App. 502, 127 ... Appellant ... had full benefit of these familiar principles in the trial ... judge's able oral charge ... Objections were interposed to the introduction of the alleged ... dying ... ...
-
Ellington v. State
...44 Ala.App. 331, 208 So.2d 241; Fleming v. State, 20 Ala.App. 481, 104 So. 137, cert. denied 213 Ala. 78, 104 So. 139; Lewis v. State, 22 Ala.App. 108, 113 So. 88; Riley v. State, 21 Ala.App. 655, 111 So. The record in this case shows that the list of jurors to be summoned consisted of the ......
-
Asbill v. State
...to disregard the confrontation between the court and defense attorney and polled the jury on that instruction. Cf.: Lewis v. State, 22 Ala.App. 108, 113 So. 88 (1927) (wherein oral charge to jury cured error of court's criticism of The record does not support appellant's contention that pre......
-
Mathis v. State
...is to be determined as if the accused had injured his intended victim. Gilbert v. State, 20 Ala.App. 28, 100 So. 566; Lewis v. State, 22 Ala.App. 108, 113 So. 88." Bradberry v. State, 37 Ala.App. 327, 67 So.2d 561, 564 (1953). "Not only is intent transferred, but also the degree of the crim......