May v. State
| Decision Date | 01 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 359. |
| Citation | 209 Ala. 72,95 So. 279 |
| Parties | MAY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County; W. L. Longshore, Judge.
Will May was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Paul O Luck, of Columbiana, and Leslie C. Longshore, of Anniston for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Section 7894 of the Code of 1907 provides that:
"On the trial of all indictments, complaints, or other criminal proceedings, the person on trial shall, at his own request, but not otherwise, be a competent witness; and his failure to make such request shall not create any presumption against him, nor be the subject of comment by counsel."
The defendant did not take the stand as a witness in the case, and the solicitor in his argument to the jury stated:
The logical and reasonable effect of these remarks could only have suggested to the jury the failure of the defendant to take the stand and give an excuse or reason, if he had one, and violated the above-quoted section of the Code. Stone v. State, 105 Ala. 60, 17 So. 114. True, while the court held in this case that the remarks were improper, the case was not reversed for same, because the defendant did not have a sufficient objection and exception. Here the defendant objected to the argument and excepted to the court's refusal to sustain said objection; also moved to exclude same and excepted to the action of the court in refusing to exclude. Nor was this error cured, or the prejudicial effect of same removed, by the statement of the solicitor, when objection was made, that he was "referring to counsel, not to the defendant." He may have intended to refer to counsel, but the only reasonable deduction to be gathered by the jury from the remarks was that the defendant was in default for failing to take the stand and make an explanation or render an excuse.
We think that a sufficient predicate was established for the introduction of the confession, both as to the corpus delicti and the voluntary making of same. Rollins v. State (Ala. App.) 92 So. 35; Hill v. State (Ala. Sup.) 93 So. 460.
The trial court committed no reversible error in that part of the oral charge as excepted to, in declining to define manslaughter, as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grady v. State
...found that certain comments by prosecutors were direct or arguable references on the failure of the accused to testify. May v. State, 209 Ala. 72, 95 So. 279 (1923); Warren v. State, 292 Ala. 71, 288 So.2d 826 (1973); Beecher v. State, supra; Whitt v. State, Ala., 370 So.2d 736 (1979); Harr......
- Arant v. State
- Stephens v. State
-
Washington v. State
...but to pronounce his failure in that regard to be error to reverse would, as we have stated, be out of order. The case of May v. State, 209 Ala. 72, 95 So. 279, is to be differentiated in two respects: first, in that there, there were no preceding remarks of the solicitor which illustrated ......