Robinson v. State
Decision Date | 28 January 1943 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 163. |
Citation | 11 So.2d 732,243 Ala. 684 |
Parties | ROBINSON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1943.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; D.H. Edington Judge.
The following charges were refused to defendant.
7. The court charges the jury that if there is a single fact proved to the satisfaction of the jury, which is inconsistent with the defendant's guilt, this is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, and the jury should acquit him.
8. The court charges the jury that if, after looking at all the evidence in this case and considering it fully, your minds are left in such a state of uncertainty that you cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged, then this is such a doubt as would entitle the defendant to an acquittal and you should so find.
9. The court charged the jury that it is the policy of the law that no innocent person should be convicted and that it is better that many guilty go unpunished than that one innocent person be convicted.
10. The court charges the jury that if under the evidence in this case there are two theories, one consistent with innocence of the defendant, and the other consistent with the guilt of the defendant, then you should acquit the defendant.
11. The court charges the jury that the only foundation for a verdict of guilty in this case is that the entire jury shall believe from all the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, that the defendant is guilty as charged in the indictment to the exclusion of every probability of his innocence, and every reasonable doubt of his guilt, and if the prosecution has failed to furnish such measure of proof and to so impress the minds of the jury of his guilt they should find him not guilty.
Wm V. McDermott, H.M. Aldridge, and G.A. Tonsmeire, all of Mobile, for appellant.
Wm. N. McQueen, Atty. Gen., and John O. Harris and Walter W. Flowers, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
The appellant, Curtis Robinson, was indicted, tried and convicted of the offense of having forcibly ravished Zeola Mae Armstrong, a woman, and sentenced to suffer the death penalty. One Henry Daniels, Jr., was indicted separately tried separately, and convicted for the same offense. His appeal is presently pending in this court.
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty, and waived the drawing of a special venire for the trial of this cause. McSwean v. State, 175 Ala. 21, 57 So. 732; White v. State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So. 709.
In his opening statement to the jury the solicitor for the State said:
Appellant insists that the trial court committed error to reverse in overruling his separate objection to the foregoing separate statements.
The effect of our decisions on the question here presented is stated in the case of Wilkey et al. v. State ex rel. Smith, 238 Ala. 595, 192 So. 588, 589, 129 A.L.R. 549, as follows:
" * * * ' See, also, 64 Corpus Juris p. 235, section 251; 38 Cyc. 1475.
The following rule was expressly approved in the case of Handley v. State, 214 Ala. 172, 106 So. 692, 694: And in the same case, it was said:
It was neither necessary nor proper for the solicitor to detail the evidence by which he intended to prove his opening statement to the jury.
Specific supporting evidence is found in the signed confession of the defendant, admitted over his objection and exception. The confession is, in part, as follows:
Laying aside for the moment the question of the admissibility of the confession as such, was the evidence tending to support the solicitor's opening statement admissible for any purpose? On the trial, the defendant denied all knowledge of, and participation in, the crime charged. Under such denial the intent and identity of the defendant as to the commission of the crime of rape against a female of another race, are material and important.
The general rule governing the admissibility of evidence of this character is stated in the case of Jackson v. State, 229 Ala. 48, 155 So. 581, 582, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Lovely
...1943, 243 Ala. 675, 11 So.2d 756, writ of certiorari denied in 1943, 319 U.S. 755, 63 S.Ct. 1168, 87 L.Ed. 1708; Robinson v. State, 1943, 243 Ala. 684, 11 So.2d 732, writ of certiorari denied in 1943, 319 U.S. 755, 63 S. Ct. 1168, 87 L.Ed. 1708." At page 593, in the same Volume (167 A.L.R.)......
-
Parsons v. State
...home, they were material in connecting defendant with participation in the robbery, and admissible for that purpose.--Robinson v. State, 243 Ala. 684, 11 So.2d 732; Sweeney v. State, 25 Ala.App. 220, 143 So. 586, certiorari denied, 225 Ala. 381, 143 So. 588. Proposition numbered IV. We do n......
-
Brown v. State, 6 Div. 238
... ... supra, in reference to this charge. A further treatment of ... the instruction in question was had in Moss v ... State, 190 Ala. 14, 67 So. 431. It now appears with ... authoritative certainty that the charge no longer warrants ... approval. See, Robinson v. State, 243 Ala. 684, 11 ... So.2d 732; Wilson v. State, 243 Ala. 1, 8 So.2d 422; ... Daniels v. State, 243 Ala. 675, 11 So.2d 756; ... Mitchell v. State, 28 Ala.App. 119, 180 So. 119; ... Chiles v. State, 28 Ala.App. 156, 181 So. 128; ... Gilbreath v. State, 23 Ala.App. 579, 129 ... ...
-
Perkins v. State
...857 (1975). See Aaron v. State, 271 Ala. 70, 83, 122 So.2d 360 (1960)(cuts consistent with fingernail scratches); Robinson v. State, 243 Ala. 684, 690, 11 So.2d 732 (1943)(injuries could have been caused by having been struck with a hand or fist and by having been choked); Wilson v. State, ......