Nichols v. State, 5 Div. 18
| Decision Date | 06 April 1937 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 18 |
| Parties | NICHOLS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Macon County; Jas. W. Strother, Judge.
Morris Nichols was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Raymond Murphy, of Florence, for appellant.
A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Clarence M. Small, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Macon county on a charge of robbery from the person of F.C. Gunter.
On the trial of this case it was proven, without dispute, that F.C Gunter, who was driving a bread truck, was held up and robbed of currency and a watch, while he was on the road between Tallassee and Notasulga, Ala. The corpus delicti was proven in every respect, none of which evidence was denied or questioned by the defendant.
The defense was an alibi. On this question the State introduced a witness to the robbery who testified as to the identity of this defendant, and of his two associates, according to the best of his knowledge. His testimony, in this respect, was corroborated and sustained by other witnesses who saw the defendant and his two associates in the neighborhood of the robbery at, or about, the time the crime was committed. Per contra, the defendant introduced witnesses tending to prove that on the day of the robbery the defendant was in Florence, Ala.; some three hundred miles distance. This made a conflict in the testimony, which was properly submitted to the jury on a charge from the court fairly presenting the issue. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and now we are asked to say that the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence.
The jury had all of the parties before them; they heard the testimony; and they are the judges of the facts. The judge trying the cause refused to grant the motion for a new trial, and under the well-settled rule as stated in Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738 and numerous other cases to the same effect, this court would not be justified in holding that the court committed error in refusing to grant the new trial.
The court refused to give at the request of the defendant the following written charge: "I charge you gentlemen of the jury that if you believe the evidence that Morris Nichols was in Florence, Ala., on April 6, 1934, then you should find the defendant not guilty." This charge predicates an acquittal upon a part of the evidence, and for that reason is faulty. It pretermits a consideration of all of the evidence in the case and for that reason was properly refused. The principle of law sought to be invoked by the charge was fully covered by the court in its oral charge, and for that reason, even if the charge had no other fault, would not be grounds for reversal.
On cross-examination of State's witness Higgins, he was asked by defendant's c...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sparks v. State, 6 Div. 572
...The court did not err in sustaining the State's objection to the question. Brown v. State, 27 Ala.App. 32, 165 So. 405; Nichols v. State, 27 Ala.App. 435, 173 So. 652.' The 'predicate' to which the Court of Appeals referred is evidently that to be laid for the purpose of impeaching a witnes......
-
Sparks v. State
...The court did not err in sustaining the State's objection to the question. Brown v. State, 27 Ala.App. 32, 165 So. 405; Nichols v. State, 27 Ala.App. 435, 173 So. 652. The appellant having testified in his own behalf, his credibility was subject to impeachment by evidence that his general c......
-
May v. State, 8 Div. 749
...47, 8 So.2d 580, 141 A.L.R. 697; Green v. State, 233 Ala. 349, 171 So. 643; Brown v. State, 27 Ala.App. 32, 165 So. 405; Nichols v. State, 27 Ala.App. 435, 173 So. 652; King v. State, 24 Ala.App. 267, 134 So. 133; Vaughn v. State, 236 Ala. 442, 183 So. 428; Pittman v. Calhoun, 231 Ala. 460,......
-
Sparks v. State, 7 Div. 633
...the arrest was being made, and to testify regarding anything said by the defendant indicating resistance to the arrest. Nichols v. State, 27 Ala.App. 435, 173 So. 652. The record reflects the State did not introduce the evidence of the incident in Utah for the purpose of establishing the ba......