Pounds v. State
| Citation | 15 Ala.App. 223,73 So. 127 |
| Decision Date | 14 November 1916 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 207 |
| Parties | POUNDS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; S.L. Brewer, Judge.
Julius J. Pounds was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Frank W. Lull and J.M. Holly, both of Wetumpka, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and H.G. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Additional copies of the record having been furnished, as provided by Supreme Court rule 46 () this case has been considered and opinion prepared in compliance with that rule.
The general affirmative charge in behalf of the defendant was properly refused. It is not necessary to prove venue in express terms by direct testimony. Venue, as any other fact may be proven by circumstances from which the inference may be drawn by the jury. Powell v. State, 5 Ala.App. 75, 83, 59 So. 530. The state's witness Keener Welsh testified to facts from which the jury might properly conclude that the venue was within the jurisdiction of the court. There was considerable testimony by other witnesses, affording proof of venue. It is not shown that the trial court's attention was directed to the fact that the general charge was requested upon the ground of failure of proof of venue; and the trial court cannot be put in error for the refusal of the general charge predicated upon that ground. Circuit Court Rule 35, 175 Ala. xxi.
Charge No. 2, requested by the defendant, exacts too high a degree of proof of guilt. Thornton v. State, 113 Ala. 43, 21 So. 356, 59 Am.St.Rep. 97; Yarbrough v. State, 115 Ala. 92, 22 So. 534.
Charge No. 3 is erroneous in assuming the truth of facts which the jury had the right to disbelieve. Powell v. State, 5 Ala.App. 75, 83, 59 So. 530. It also misplaces the burden of proof as to an element of self-defense. Under the plea of self-defense, the burden is on the defendant, and, unless the jury are satisfied from the evidence that the plea is sustained, the defense fails. Lawson v. State, 155 Ala. 44, 46 So. 259.
The court is under no duty to give charges which instruct the jury that they may "look to" certain evidence, or "consider" certain facts, and charge No. 4 was, for this reason, properly refused. Stone v. State, 105 Ala. 60, 17 So. 114.
The probability of defendant's innocence, which justifies an acquittal, must arise from a consideration of all the evidence. Charge No. 11 is bad in stating in the alternative that the jury would be justified in acquitting the defendant, based on a probability of his innocence from a consideration of a part only of the evidence. Olden v. State, 176 Ala. 6, 58 So. 307.
Charge 17 submits a question of law to the jury, and was properly refused. Greer v. State, 156 Ala. 15, 47 So. 300.
A number of charges were given by the court at the request of the defendant. Some of these charges were more favorable to the defendant than was justified under the well-settled rules of law, several times announced by the Supreme Court and this court, in condemning similar charges to some of those given. The Supreme Court has approved in Smith's Case, 182 Ala 38, 62 So. 184, a charge in the same language in that case (charge 16) as refused charge No. 13 in the case under consideration. The charge is criticized in the opinion in Smith's Case as subject to hypercriticism, yet a correct statement of the law. It would seem to be open to the same criticism of a somewhat similar charge condemned in a group of charges in McClain's Case, 182 Ala. 67, 62 So. 241, as being an incorrect statement of the law, in predicating an acquittal on a reasonable doubt of guilt or probability of innocence "not existing in the face of the whole evidence." 182 Ala. 81, 62 So. 244. (The word "consistent," as it appears in the report of this case, in charge H should read "inconsistent," as appears from the original record.)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ledbetter v. State
... ... certain witnesses and places undue emphasis on disputed ... facts. Ray v. State, 248 Ala. 425, 27 So.2d 872; ... Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Co. v. Bates, Ala.App., ... 30 So.2d 273; Jennings v. State, 15 Ala.App. 116, 72 ... So. 690; Pounds v. State, 15 Ala.App. 223, 73 So ... Refused charge number 16 is not predicated on the evidence ... Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179; ... Minor v. State, 15 Ala.App. 556, 74 So. 98 ... Charges 17 and 19 relate to the offense of murder. The ... verdict ... ...
-
Cumbo v. State
...Harrison v. City of Anniston, 156 Ala. 620, 46 So. 980 (1908); Wall v. State, 49 Ala.App. 285, 270 So.2d 831 (1972); Pounds v. State, 15 Ala.App. 223, 73 So. 127 (1916). Hicks' body was found two and one-half to three miles from the Cleburne County Courthouse down an embankment off the side......
-
Lovejoy v. State
... ... and 180. Outler v. State, 147 Ala. 39, 41 So. 460; ... Jackson v. State, 5 Ala.App. 306, 57 So. 594 ... These ... are invasive of the province of the jury: 53, 54, 55, 56, 97, ... 102, 111, 122, 139, 141, 143, 153, 157, and 178. Pounds ... v. State, 15 Ala.App. 223, 73 So. 127; Jennings v ... State, 15 Ala.App. 116, 72 So. 690 ... Each ... of the following omits some essential element incident to the ... doctrine of self-defense: 61, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 94, 98, ... 101, 103, 112, 115, 118, 121, 151, 161, 162, ... ...
-
Volunteer State Life Ins. Co. v. Danley
...of the jury and therefore were invasive of its province. Continental Gin Co. v. Milbrat, 10 Ala.App. 351, 65 So. 424; Pounds v. State, 15 Ala.App. 223, 73 So. 127. It cogently urged that the general affirmative charge should have been given the defendant below under Count 1 of the complaint......