Rigsby v. State

Decision Date02 July 1907
Citation44 So. 608,152 Ala. 9
PartiesRIGSBY v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; S. L. Brewer, Judge.

Neal Rigsby was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The defendant and several others were indicted for the killing of Bill McCain by shooting him with a gun. Numerous exceptions were reserved to the introduction of the evidence, but it is deemed unnecessary to set them out here. There was evidence tending to show a conspiracy between those indicted to kill deceased, and it was contended that this defendant did the shooting that resulted in the death of the defendant. The judge's charge was reduced to writing, and is set out in extenso in the bill of exceptions. The exception as reserved thereto, as it appears in the bill of exceptions, is as follows: The defendant excepted to that part of the general charge as a whole, and to each part separately, so far as the same referred to the guilt or innocence of any one who aids or abets in the commission of the offense with which the defendant was charged, assigning as grounds for his objection that there was no evidence here tending to show that the defendant aided or abetted any one; that the contention of the state was that the defendant himself committed the deed not that he aided or abetted any one else in the commission of it. The defendant also objected to the general charge of the court as a whole, and to each part separately, so far as said general charge related to the question of conspiracy assigning as grounds for his objection that there was no proof tending to show any concert of action between the defendant and anybody, or between anybody and the defendant in the commission of the offense.

The following charges were refused to defendant: (2) "Often an alibi is the only defense an innocent man has, and it is your duty under your oaths to give it proper consideration and if the evidence as to same is sufficient to awaken any reasonable doubt as to this defendant's guilt in good conscience you must find him not guilty." (5) "If the defendant was at the time of the killing at another and different place from where it was done, and therefore was not and could not have been the person who killed deceased, or if all the evidence raises in your mind a reasonable doubt as to his presence at said time and place you will find the defendant not guilty." (6) "The court charges the jury that, if defendant has reasonably satisfied your mind that he was elsewhere at the time of the commission of the offense, then you must find the defendant not guilty." (9) "Before the jury can convict the defendant, they must be satisfied to a moral certainty, not only that the proof is consistent with defendant's guilt, but that it is wholly inconsistent with every other rational conclusion, and unless the jury are so convinced by the evidence of defendant's guilt that they would each venture to act upon that decision in matters of high concern and importance to his own interest, then they must find the defendant not guilty." (12) "If there is any evidence before you which causes you to have a reasonable doubt as to the presence of the defendant at the time and place the crime is alleged to have been committed, you must acquit the defendant." (13) "If any part of the testimony raises a reasonable doubt as to this defendant's participation in the killing, it is your duty under your oaths to find him not guilty." (15) "In order to sustain a conviction, the state must introduce testimony so strong and convincing as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the defendant's guilt. It must convince you beyond all reasonable doubt that he cannot be innocent or he must be acquitted." (16) "If from all the evidence there is a reasonable probability that some one else, and not this defendant, killed the deceased, you must find him not guilty." (20) "No conviction must be had in this case unless each and every one of you is convinced beyond all reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, and unless you are so convinced it is your duty not to consent to a verdict against him." (21) "The humane provision of the law is that upon circumstantial evidence there must not be a conviction, unless to a moral certainty it excludes every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the defendant. If it does not, the form of your verdict will be: 'We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty.' " (22) "The court charges the jury that there is no evidence in this case of a conspiracy." (23) General affirmative charge. (26) "If you find the evidence in this case for and against the defendant in such irreconcilable conflict that you are not satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt as to what is really the truth, and consequently have any reasonable doubt arising therefrom as to this defendant's guilt, he must be acquitted."

Defendant was convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for life.

George Shreve and F. L. Tait, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

DOWDELL J.

The defendant was indicted under the name of "Neal Rigsby alias Neal Rigby." In the copy of the indictment served on him before entering upon the trial his name was stated as "Neal Rigby, alias Neal Rigby." The defendant objected to being put upon his trial for the alleged reason that he had not been served with a true copy of the indictment against him one entire day before the day of his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Davis v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 27, 1913
    ...... in the examination of the defendant's witnesses during. the progress of the trial. Johnson v. State, 133. Ala. 43, 31 So. 951; Sanders v. State, 134 Ala. 85,. 32 So. 654; Williams v. State, 161 Ala. 57, 50 So. 59. See, in connection, also, Rigsby v. State, 152. Ala. 9, 44 So. 608. . . In a. still later case, however, our Supreme Court, viewing the. charge from another angle, condemned it in toto in a murder. case (as is the case here), holding that it was bad, in that. it required defendant's acquittal, unless the jury. ......
  • Ex parte Hill
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 22, 1924
    ...v. State, 94 Ala. 102, 10 So. 663, Potter v. State, 92 Ala. 37, 9 So. 402, Dennis v. State, 112 Ala. 65, 68, 20 So. 925, and Rigsby v. State, 152 Ala. 9, 44 So. 608. The subject and form of the charge approved in Gilmore's Case, supra, was given specific treatment and condemned as erroneous......
  • Brooks v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 5, 1913
    ...of the evidence raising more than a mere suspicion. The charge ignores the effect or tendency of a part of the evidence. Rigsby v. State, 152 Ala. 9, 44 So. 608. It does not state if the evidence raises no more than a suspicion, but only if it raises such a suspicion. The instruction might ......
  • Favors v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 5, 1945
    ...which the exceptions are directed. Brock v. State, 28 Ala.App. 52, 178 So. 547; Hall v. State, 11 Ala.App. 95, 65 So. 427; Rigsby v. State, 152 Ala. 9, 44 So. 608; Cowart v. State, 16 Ala.App. 119, 75 So. Forsythe v. State, 19 Ala.App. 669, 100 So. 198. Among the written charges requested a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT