Ott v. State
Decision Date | 28 February 1950 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 779 |
Citation | 35 Ala.App. 219,46 So.2d 226 |
Parties | OTT v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Jas. M. Proctor, of Scottsboro, for appellant.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and L. E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The following charges were refused to defendant:
'2. I charge you, Gentlemen of the Jury, that the paper purporting to be a search warrant introduced in evidence in this case gave no lawful authority to the witness J. P. Haywood, to enter and search the dwelling house of the defendant, Breeland Ott.
'3. I charge you, Gentlemen of the Jury, that the paper purporting to be a search warrant introduced as evidence in this case, gave no lawful authority to the witness J. P. Haywood to enter and search the dwelling house of the defendant.
Appellant was convicted of assault with intent to murder. The alleged assaulted party is Anderson J. Knight, Chief Deputy Sheriff of Jackson County, Alabama.
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 29, Sec. 210, Code 1940, Mr. Knight secured a search warrant directed to appellant's premises and authorizing a search for prohibited liquors. The warrant was addressed 'To Any Lawful Officer.'
Accompanied by Mr. James P. Haywood, State Prohibition Enforcement Officer, Mr. Knight proceeded to the home of the appellant. Upon arriving, the deputy knocked on the door of the house and informed the defendant that he and Haywood were officers and had a search warrant for the premises. The appellant opened the door and immediately shot at Mr. Knight. The two were standing only a few feet apart. There followed considerable pistol and rifle firing by each of the three above named parties.
We have delineated the tendencies of the evidence according to the testimony of the State's witnesses.
The only question pressed in briefs for our review is the action of the lower court in refusing written charges numbered 2, 3, and 4.
Appellant relies on Booth v. State, 22 Ala.App. 508, 117 So. 492, 494, for an authority for reversible error. Similar charges were there reviewed and approved by this court.
It is first to be noted that in the Booth case the search warrant was addressed 'To the Sheriff or Any Constable of Said County.' It followed the form prescribed in Sec. 105, Title 15, Code 1940.
It is made to appear also that Dailey secured the warrant and the indictment charged an assault on one Gilbert. It was not shown that the injured party had been deputized by Dailey to assist in the execution of the warrant.
In this state of the record Judge Samford wrote:
In the case at bar Knight was the assaulted party and the indictment so charges. He was armed with the search warrant which unquestionably he was authorized to execute. If the charges in question had been given they would have tended to becloud the material issues in the case.
We think that they were properly refused for another reason, and this criticism applies with equal force to the holding in the Booth case. There is a long line of authorities which hold that it is never reversible error to refuse a charge which is not hypothesized on the evidence and which merely states an abstract proposition of law without further instructions to the jury in respect to its application to the issues in the case. Fleetwood v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 246 Ala. 571, 21 So.2d 696, 159 A.L.R. 171; Reedy v. State, 246 Ala. 363, 20 So.2d 528; Claude Jones & Son et al. v. Lair, 245 Ala. 441, 17 So.2d 577; Francis v. Imperial Sanitary Laundry & Dry Cleaning Co., 241 Ala. 327, 2 So.2d 388; Streetman v. Bowdon et al., 239 Ala. 359, 194 So. 831; Maxwell v. State, 32 Ala.App. 487, 27 So.2d 804; Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Donaldson, 231 Ala. 242, 164 So. 97; Ridgely Operating Co. v. White, 227 Ala. 459, 150 So. 693; Thomas v. State, Ala.App., 41 So.2d 435; Smith v. Lilley, 252 Ala. 425, 41 So.2d 175.
Refused charge 4 contains an additional objectionable feature. The court will not be put in error for refusing a written instruction which asserts that there is or is not evidence of a particular matter. Huguley v. State, 15 Ala.App. 189, 72 So. 764; Watts v. State, 8 Ala.App. 264, 63 So. 18; Bridgeforth v. State, 15 Ala.App. 502, 74 So. 402; Griffin v. State, 165 Ala. 29, 50 So. 962; Davis v. State, 27 Ala.App. 551, 176 So. 379; Pollard v. Williams,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Martin, 77-3453
...In re State ex rel. Attorney General, 179 Ala. 639, 60 So. 285 (1912); Rep.Ala.Att.Gen. 1919-20 at 501. Cf. Ott v. State, 46 So.2d 226 (Ct.App.Ala.1950); Booth v. State, 22 Ala.App. 508, 117 So. 492 (Ct.App.Ala.1928).7 But see note 13, Infra.8 The District Court rejected the theory of the M......
-
Jones v. State
...and other deputies were present. We therefore hold that the warrant in question was properly executed in this cause. See Ott v. State, 35 Ala.App. 219, 46 So.2d 226; cf., Booth v. State, 22 Ala.App. 508, 117 So. 492; 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures § 83, page During the qualifying of the ju......
-
Williams v. State
...as to the effect such doctrine has upon the issues involved in the case. Smith v. Lilley, 252 Ala. 425, 41 So.2d 175; Ott v. State, 35 Ala.App. 219, 46 So.2d 226. The following charges come under the influence of this rule: R, W, x, and 25-A.A. Charges 40, 67, and 7(P) are in duplication in......
-
Higginbotham v. State
...Section 273, Code of Alabama 1940; Smith v. State, 56 Ala.App. 109, 319 So.2d 729; Jones v. State, 174 Ala. 53, 57 So. 31; Ott v. State, 35 Ala.App. 219, 46 So.2d 226, certiorari denied, 253 Ala. 617, 46 So.2d Appellant complains that the trial court erred in sustaining state's objection to......