Roy v. State, 3
| Decision Date | 16 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,3 |
| Parties | Eddie ROY v. STATE. Div. 120. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Marlin M. Mooneyham, Montgomery, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and Thomas R. Allison, Asst. Atty. Gen. for the State, appellee.
The defendant was indicted and convicted for second degree burglary and grand larceny. Sentence was fixed at six years' imprisonment. The only questions are the failure of the trial judge to give two of the defendant's written requested charges regarding the character and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.
All the evidence in this case was circumstantial. A glass door was broken at the burglarized residence. Blood on the glass was of the same type as the defendant's. Near the door and the broken glass was a receipt from Trucker Pecan Company bearing the defendant's name. This receipt was dated the same day as the burglary and was found miles from where the defendant claimed to have visited or traveled that day. The defendant was arrested shortly after the burglary was discovered. He had a small but fresh cut on a finger of his left hand.
The defense was alibi and the defendant denied being anywhere near the scene of the crime.
The only portion of the trial judge's oral instructions dealing with circumstantial evidence is as follows:
All seventeen of the defendant's requested charges were refused.
The defendant properly preserved the error by requesting the written charge. Smith v. State, 53 Ala.App. 657, 659, 303 So.2d 157 (1974). An exception to the Failure of a court to charge on a matter is not necessary where a requested written charge is refused. An exception reaches only what the court did say. Grisham v. State, 147 Ala. 1, 41 So. 997 (1906). The fact that defense counsel announced "satisfied" with what the trial court did say in its oral charge cannot be construed as a waiver of the judge's refusal to give a requested written instruction.
The trial court refused defendant's requested charge 15:
"I charge you that when the evidence relied on for a conviction is circumstantial, the chain of circumstances must be complete and of such character as to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt, and, if the circumstances as proven fail to so convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that Eddie Roy is guilty, then you should return a verdict of not guilty."
This charge is identical to charge number 4 in James v. State, 22 Ala.App. 183, 113 So. 648 (1927). In James, the court held that it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse to give that instruction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hebron v. State
...241 (1989); State v. Eagle, 611 P.2d 1211 (Utah 1980); State v. Derouchie, 140 Vt. 437, 440 A.2d 146 (1981). But see Roy v. State, 375 So.2d 1289 (Ala.Cr.App.1979); Mercer v. State, 169 Ga.App. 723, 314 S.E.2d 729 (1984); State v. Holman, 109 Idaho 382, 707 P.2d 493 (App.1985); Adams v. Sta......
-
Thomas v. State
...of the accused's guilt "are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis."'" (Citations omitted.) See, e.g., Roy v. State, 375 So.2d 1289, 1291 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979) (in a wholly circumstantial evidence case, conviction reversed because the trial court refused a requested charge that ......
-
Coon v. State, 4 Div. 348
...misleading, which correctly state the law of the case, and which are supported by any evidence." (Citation omitted.) Roy v. State, 375 So.2d 1289, 1291 (Ala.Cr.App.1979). Thus, the charge, first, must be a correct statement of the law and, second, must not be misleading. The defendant's req......
-
Calloway v. State, 4 Div. 400
...robbery is more properly characterized as a gaping hole in this case. That chain of circumstances must be complete, Roy v. State, 375 So.2d 1289, 1290-1 (Ala.Cr.App.1979), and constitute a "well-connected train." DeSilvey v. State, 245 Ala. 163, 167, 16 So.2d 183 (1943). " 'Where circumstan......