Robinson v. State
Decision Date | 28 October 1952 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 372 |
Parties | ROBINSON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Omar L. Reynolds and Reynolds & Reynolds, all of Clanton, for appellant.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and L. E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Chas. C. Carlton, Montgomery, of counsel, for the State.
These charges were refused to defendant:
Appellant was adjudged guilty in the Chilton County Law and Equity Court under an affidavit charging him with the unlawful possession of prohibited liquors, in violation of Section 98 of Title 29, Code 1940. A fine of $50 and costs, and a sentence of 90 days' hard labor for the county was imposed.
On appeal to the circuit court a jury found defendant guilty and assessed a fine of $100. The court imposed a hard labor sentence of 180 days as additional punishment.
On the trial, C. J. Turner, the arresting officer, testified he searched defendant at the time of arrest and found almost a pint of home-made whiskey in the nail apron pocket of the carpenter's overalls worn by defendant. He further testified defendant was drinking. The jailer, Owens, testified defendant had the odor of whiskey on his breath and a bottle of whiskey was turned over to him by Turner.
In his own behalf, defendant testified he was wearing a shirt and pants and did not have on overalls. He had been to Birmingham with a load of corn and stopped by his sister's home about an hour before he was arrested. He insisted he was not drinking and had no whiskey. Defendant's sister testified he was at her home shortly before the arrest and had no whiskey and so far as she knew he was not drinking.
Clearly, under the evidence, defendant was not entitled to the affirmative charge.
Counsel complains in brief of the court's refusal to give requested charges A and D.
The refusal of a charge identical to charge A was held to be reversible error in Roper v. State, 27 Ala.App. 78, 165 So. 870.
But in Hurston v. State, 235 Ala. 213, 178 So. 223, the Supreme Court held it is not error to refuse charges of similar import where the court in its oral charge fully covers the law as to the burden and measure of proof. In this case the court, as to the burden of proof, instructed the jury:
'Now to that charge the defendant says that he is not guilty and denies the charge and when he enters his plea of not guilty it places the burden upon the State to prove him guilty from the evidence in the case beyond a reasonable doubt before you can convict the defendant. * * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Earnest v. State
...of innocence, the refusal of charge 15 (charge 4, Roper v. State, 27 Ala.App. 78, 165 So. 870) was probably error. In Robinson v. State, 36 Ala.App. 604, 61 So.2d 140, charge A, which corresponds to charge 15 refused here, was refused without error because of the trial judge's instruction i......
- Rogers v. State, 2 Div. 832
-
Garrett v. State
...1940, Tit. 7, § 273; Supreme Court Rule 45, Code 1940, Tit. 7, Appendix; Hurston v. State, 235 Ala. 213, 178 So. 223; Robinson v. State, 36 Ala.App. 604, 61 So.2d 140. Requested refused Charges 13 and 17 to the effect that if the shot that killed the deceased was accidentally fired, the jur......
-
Reese v. State, 5 Div. 333
...43 So. 194; Davis v. State, 23 Ala.App. 419, 126 So. 414. Refused charge 14 was not the charge approved or at issue in Robinson v. State, 36 Ala.App. 604, 61 So.2d 140. The State points this out, but concludes that the Defendant simply reworded the charges discussed in the Robinson case in ......