Norris v. State

• Decision Date: 20 June 1889
• Citation: 87 Ala. 85,6 So. 371
• Parties: NORRIS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

6 So. 371

87 Ala. 85

NORRIS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 20, 1889

Appeal from circuit court, Madison county; H. C. SPEAKE, Judge.

The indictment in this case charged that J. Taylor Norris forcibly assaulted Mrs. Sallie Rodgers, a married woman, with the intent to ravish her. The trial was had on issue joined on the plea of not guilty; the defendant being found guilty of an assault, and fined $225. The prosecutrix testified positively that, on a specified day in January, 1882, the defendant came to her house during the absence of her husband, "put his arms around her, forcibly held and pressed her, and only released her on her threats to call assistance," and that she made complaint to her husband on his return in the evening, and her husband corroborated her as to the complaint made. The defendant, testifying for himself, denied that he made any assault on the prosecutrix and said that he only went to the house for the purpose of getting a bridle, which she brought out to him; and his testimony was corroborated in some particulars by one George Miller, who was with him a part of the time.

The court charged the jury "that the interest the defendant has in the case may be considered by them in weighing his own evidence." The defendant excepted to this charge as given, and also excepted to the refusal of each of the following charges asked by him: "(1) If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant had no intention to commit a battery on Mrs. Rodgers, then there was no assault and the defendant must be acquitted. (2) The burden is on the state to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt; and if the prosecutrix is the only witness on behalf of the state testifying to the charge, and if the defendant and George Miller testified, on behalf of the defendant, that the offense was not committed, and if the jury find from the evidence that each witness is equally credible and their opportunities are equal, then the state has not made out its case, and the defendant should be acquitted. (3) If the prosecutrix testifies to the assault the fact that the defendant was in proximity to the place where, as she alleges, the offense was committed, does not make him guilty of anything; the law does not recognize any such absurdity. (4) If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant did put his arm around the neck of the prosecutrix, but the proof does not show more, there is an absence of that intent which must be shown to justify a conviction. (5) In considering the testimony of the prosecutrix, and of her husband, as corroborating testimony to whom she testified that she complained, the jury may consider whether the offense testified to by her is the same of which she complained to him, and whether it is the same with which he is now charged; and it is the duty of the jury to reconcile the statements of these two witnesses, if they can; and if they cannot upon consideration of the whole testimony, and have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, then they must acquit him."

Lawrence Cooper, John D. Brandon, and L. W. Day, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

CLOPTON J.

When the charges requested by the defendant are referred to the evidence, we discover no error in the refusal of the court to give them.

The indictment charges the offense of assault with intent to ravish. Defendant asked the court to instruct the jury, if they believe from the evidence there was no intention to commit a battery, then there was no...