Lovelady v. State
Decision Date | 04 August 1931 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 306. |
Citation | 24 Ala.App. 502,136 So. 871 |
Parties | LOVELADY v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing October 6, 1931.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; W. W. Callahan, Judge.
Norman Lovelady was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Instruction regarding benefit of doubt whether defense of self-defense was made out held properly refused as ignoring doctrine of retreat.
The following charges were refused to defendant:
Lynne & Lynne, of Decatur, for appellant.
Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant, a boy seventeen years old, and weighing 110 pounds, was indicted for the killing of another boy twenty-one years old and weighing 160 pounds, by stabbing him with a knife. The boys had been friends and associates from infancy, but on the day of the homicide there was a half-gallon fruit jar of whisky; the big boy drank some of it, a falling out between the friends, an assault by the dead boy, and the stabbing by the defendant, from which the deceased died.
For the purposes of this opinion, it will be unnecessary to set out the evidence. It will suffice to say that the evidence for the state tended to prove a case of manslaughter, if no higher degree, while the evidence for defendant tended to prove a clear case of self-defense, which would justify the homicide. These were all questions for the jury, and, as the affirmative charge is not insisted upon, the evidence will not be commented on further in that connection.
The court refused to give at the request of the defendant in writing charge 3, as follows: "The court charges the jury that if they are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, when the defendant struck with his knife, he intended to kill Norris, or that the act was one from which death or great bodily harm would ordinarily, or in the usual course of events, follow, they must acquit the defendant of manslaughter in the first degree."
This charge has been held good in Lewis v. State, 96 Ala 6, 11 So. 259, 38 Am. St. Rep. 75; Harrington v. State, 83 Ala. 16, 3 So. 425, and Williams v. State, 83 Ala. 19, 3 So. 616. But, since the case of Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179, which was based on Davis v. State, 188 Ala. 59, 66 So. 67, charges requiring acquittal, unless the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, must be predicated upon the whole evidence, and, when not so predicated, are held to be technically bad, and the refusal of such charges is not reversible error. Since the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bankhead v. State
... ... The charge was approved in the ... following cases: Deal v. State, 136 Ala. 52, 34 So ... 23; Bluett v. State, 151 Ala. 41, 44 So. 84; Ex ... parte Johnson, 183 Ala. 88, 63 So. 73; Cox v. State, ... 21 Ala.App. 87, 105 So. 700; Holland v. State, 24 ... Ala.App. 199, 132 So. 601; and Lovelady v. State, 24 ... Ala.App. 502, 136 So. 871. The charge was disapproved in the ... early case of Williams v. State, 144 Ala. 14, 40 So ... 405, because ... [32 So.2d 820.] ... [33 Ala.App. 275] of the peculiar facts applicable to that ... case. The Deal case, supra, was discussed and ... ...
-
Brown v. State, 6 Div. 238
... ... cases. In Deal v. State, 136 Ala. 52, 34 So. 23, the ... court held that it should have been given. See also, Ex parte ... Johnson, 183 Ala. 88, 63 So. 73; Bluett v. State, ... 151 Ala. 41, 44 So. 84; Cox v. State, 21 Ala.App ... 87, 105 So. 700; Lovelady v. State, 24 Ala.App. 502, ... 136 So. 871; Holland v. State, 24 Ala.App. 199, 132 ... So. 601. In the following cases it did not find favor: ... Williams v. State, 144 Ala. 14, 40 So. 405, ... Pippin v. State, 197 Ala. 613, 73 So. 340; ... Johnson v. State, 8 Ala.App. 14, 62 So. 450 ... ...
-
Browning v. State
... ... raising a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt ... Charges requiring acquittal must be based upon a ... consideration of the whole evidence, and where such ... consideration is pretermitted a charge may be properly ... refused. Lovelady v. State, 24 Ala.App. 502, 136 So ... 871; Curlette v. State, 25 Ala.App. 179, 142 So ... 775; 6 Alabama Digest, Criminal Law, + 815 (9) ... Refused ... charges 23 and 27 are fully covered by the court in its oral ... charge to the jury. And, while these two charges are ... ...
-
McCray v. State, 1 Div. 664
...220, Ala. 39, 123 So. 236; Stinson v. State, 10 Ala.App. 110, 64 So. 507; Branch v. State, 10 Ala.App. 94, 64 So. 507; Lovelady v. State, 24 Ala.App. 502, 136 So. 871; Stafford v. State, 33 Ala.App. 163, 31 So.2d 146; Burkett v. State, 154 Ala. 19, 45 So. 682; Adams v. State, 175 Ala. 8, 57......