Rollings v. State

• Decision Date: 23 April 1903
• Citation: 136 Ala. 126,34 So. 349
• Parties: ROLLINGS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

34 So. 349

136 Ala. 126

ROLLINGS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 23, 1903

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; A. H. Alston, Judge.

John Rollings was convicted of using abusive or obscene language in the presence or hearing of a woman, and fined $50, and appeals. Reversed.

The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: "(1) The court charges the jury that if what defendant said spoken in the manner in which it was said, was not in the presence or hearing of a female, you should acquit defendant and to require his acquittal it is sufficient if the jury have a reasonable doubt of this fact. (2) If the jury have a reasonable doubt as to whether the language used was in the presence or hearing of a woman, you should acquit the defendant. (3) The court charges the jury that the fact, if it be a fact, that the female did not hear the language used by the defendant, is a circumstance tending to show that it was not in the presence or hearing of the female. (4) Before you can convict the defendant, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that what defendant said was near enough to be heard, spoken in the manner in which it was spoken." The court, at the request of the defendant, gave to the jury several written charges, among which was the following "(2) If, after considering all the evidence, the jury have a reasonable doubt arising out of any part of the evidence as to whether the language used by the defendant was in the presence or hearing of a female, then the jury must find the defendant not guilty."

Street & Isbell, for appellant.

Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SHARPE J.

Defendant was tried upon an indictment charging him with using abusive insulting, or obscene language in the presence of a woman. There was evidence tending to show defendant, while intoxicated, uttered the objectionable language on the porch of a dwelling house in which there were women, and that on leaving the house he made a similar utterance while he was between the house and the yard gate. Against objection, a witness examined about the occurrence on the porch was allowed to testify that, in his judgment, the females were near enough to hear the language, and with reference to what defendant said in the yard another witness was allowed to testify that, in his judgment, it could...