Riddle v. State
| Decision Date | 10 May 1932 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 883. |
| Citation | 142 So. 680,25 Ala.App. 142 |
| Parties | RIDDLE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied May 24, 1932.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; W. B. Bowling, Judge.
John Allen Riddle was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Riddle v. State, 142 So 682.
Paul J Hooton, of Roanoke, for appellant.
Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Thos Seay Lawson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
That the deceased came to his death as a result of pistol shot wounds inflicted by this appellant is without dispute. On the trial the defendant admitted having killed him, but insisted that he acted in self-defense. In this connection he offered the testimony of several witnesses which tended to sustain him. The evidence without dispute showed that there were three wounds upon the body, and that the death wound was in the back of the deceased. Appellant's contention that he was entitled to the general affirmative charge cannot be sustained. The mere fact of the death wound being in the back of the deceased, without reference to the oral testimony of witnesses, would necessitate a submission of the case to the jury, for the weight and probative force of evidence is for the jury, and the physical evidence as to location of the death wound rendered the affirmative charge inapt, and under such state of facts the court was without authority to direct a verdict. Angling v. State, 137 Ala. 17, 34 So. 846; Cobb v. State, 19 Ala. App. 345, 97 So. 779. Mangino v. Todd, 19 Ala. App. 486, 98 So. 323; Moon v. State, 21 Ala. App. 111, 105 So. 427. Vaughan v. State, 21 Ala. App. 204, 107 So. 797. In the Moon Case, supra, this court said:
The insistence of appellant to the effect that the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial cannot be considered. This point of decision is not presented as the law requires. The motion for a new trial is set out in the record proper only. No mention thereof appears in the bill of exceptions. Section 6088 of the Code 1923. See, also, Byrd v. State (Ala. App.) 136 So. 431; Joe Smith v. State (Ala. App.) 141 So. 265.
The few exceptions to the court's rulings upon the admission of evidence have been examined and have had the consideration of this court. There is no merit in any of these exceptions, as it clearly appears no prejudicial error prevailed in the court's rulings in this connection. The points of decision involved are simple and elementary. A detailed discussion is deemed unnecessary.
The remaining questions involve the court's rulings in refusing numerous special charges.
Charges 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 all deal with reasonable doubt. The court in its oral charge gave a thorough and clear instruction as this phase of the law. Section 9509, Code of Alabama 1923.
Charges 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 all refer to the testimony of the witnesses and the weight to be given them. These charges were properly refused, as they were covered by the court's oral charge and requested charges given.
Charges 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, and 35 all deal with reasonable doubt, which phase of the law was amply covered by the court's oral charge and written charges given. Many of the above charges contain incorrect statements of the law.
Charges 37 and 40 were covered by the court's oral charge.
Charge 38 was properly refused. Stallworth v. State, 155 Ala. 14, 46 So. 518.
Charge 39 omits the elements of self-defense, and therefore was properly refused.
Charge 41 was not applicable to the case.
Charge 42 was given.
Charge 43 was covered by oral charge.
Charge 44 was properly refused. Ward v. State, 21 Ala. App. 551, 109 So. 897.
Charge 45 is an incorrect statement and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mabry v. State
...his guilt on the theory that the act was the independent act of Floyd. Edwards v. State, 33 Ala.App. 386, 34 So.2d 173; Riddle v. State, 25 Ala.App. 142, 142 So. 680; De Graaf v. State, 34 Ala.App. 137, 37 So.2d 130; Stallworth v. State, 155 Ala. 14, 46 So. 518; Kelly v. State, 235 Ala. 5, ......
-
Raines v. State
...bodily harm at the hands of deceased."). See also Kizziah v. State, 32 Ala.App. 197, 198-99, 23 So.2d 19 (1945); Riddle v. State, 25 Ala.App. 142, 143, 142 So. 680, cert. denied, 225 Ala. 218, 142 So. 682 A court should not instruct on self-defense when there is no evidence to sustain the p......
-
Glass v. State, 4 Div. 543.
... ... State, 19 Ala.App ... 345, 346, 348, 97 So. 779; Mangino v. Todd et al., ... 19 Ala.App. 486, 491, 98 So. 323; Moon v. State, 21 ... Ala.App. 111, 112, 105 So. 427; Vaughan v. State, 21 ... Ala.App. 204, 107 So. 797; Wright v. State, 22 ... Ala.App. 376, 115 So. 852; Riddle v. State, 25 ... Ala.App. 142, 142 So. 680; Williams v. State, 26 ... Ala.App. 529, 163 So. 668; Barnum v. State, 28 ... Ala.App. 590, 190 So. 310 ... We note ... a few exceptions to the court's rulings upon the main ... question involved as to the killing of deceased by defendant ... ...
-
Lockett v. State, 8 Div. 357
...the affirmative charge inapt, and under such state of facts the court was without authority to direct a verdict." Riddle v. State, 25 Ala.App. 142, 143, 142 So. 680, 681, cert. denied, 225 Ala. 218, 142 So. 682 (1932) (citations omitted). See also Hopkins v. State, 429 So.2d 1146, 1159 (Ala......