Salvadori v. State
| Decision Date | 03 February 1948 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 925. |
| Citation | 33 Ala.App. 372,33 So.2d 752 |
| Parties | SALVADORI v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Roberts, Cunningham & Hawkins, of Gadsden for appellant.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the court below of burglary. He did not elect to testify in his own behalf. The trial judge refused to him this written charge:
'The Court charges the Jury that the fact that the defendant did not testify in this case cannot be considered in determining defendant's guilt or innocence.'
In the oral charge no reference whatever is made to the fact that the accused did not testify, nor is there any explanation given of the effect thereof. In other words, the oral charge is in complete silence on the matter.
So far as we are able to find, this question in exact instant form has not been reviewed by our appellate courts except in comparatively few cases.
In Medley v. State, 156 Ala. 78, 47 So. 218, apparently an attempt was made to have the jury instructed in regard to this privilege. On account of the inaccurate verbiage of the tendered charge, the Supreme Court approved its refusal.
In Thomas v. State, 139 Ala. 80, 36 So. 734, reversal was predicated upon the action of the lower court in refusing a charge which in effect and purport is the same as the one under consideration here. It should be noted that this decision antedated the adoption of Supreme Court, Rule 45, Code 1940, Tit. 7, Appendix.
This court treated a similar charge in Turner v. State, 29 Ala.App. 13, 191 So. 392. We did not condemn nor disapprove the instruction, but justified its refusal by concluding that it was error without injury. On review by certiorari, Justice Bouldin, writing for the Supreme Court 238 Ala. 352, 191 So. 396, went into the question at some length and published a very comprehensive discussion of the matter. The writ was denied on the basis and for the reason that the Supreme Court is not privileged to review the findings of this court on the question of error without injury, unless our opinion discloses a misapplication of the rule.
A written charge to the same effect is contained in the original record in the case of Alston v. State, 248 Ala. 163, 26 So.2d 877. Justice Stakely, in preparing the opinion for the court, did not denounce the instruction, but justified its refusal for the reason that it was substantially covered by the oral charge. The opinion gives recognition to the holding in the Thomas case, supra.
In consonance with the provisions of Title 15, Sec. 305, Code 1940, and the authorities we have noted, it appears evident that unless we can apply Supreme Court Rule 45 to the action of the lower court in the matter of instant concern, the judgment at nisi prius must be reversed.
The evidence for the State in the main centered around the proof that, when the defendant was arrested, a piece of paper was found on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tiner v. State
...an equal duty demands that we employ commensurate diligence to protect and safeguard the rights of parties litigant. Salvadori v. State, 33 Ala.App. 372, 33 So.2d 752. 'Right of appeal in a criminal case is one of substance and § 389, Title 15, Code of 1940, imposes upon the court a duty to......
-
Ross Neely Motor Exp. v. Robinson
...248 Ala. 612, 29 So.2d 8; Slayton v. State, 234 Ala. 9, 173 So. 645; Brown v. State, 33 Ala.App. 152, 31 So.2d 652; Salvadori v. State, 33 Ala.App. 372, 33 So.2d 752; Webb v. State, 33 Ala.App. 520, 35 So.2d We have responded to each assignment of error and conclude that the judgment below ......
-
Denson v. State, 7 Div. 181
...we would do violence to the spirit and intent of the rule in question if we should make it apply to the case at bar. Salvadori v. State, 33 Ala.App. 372, 33 So.2d 752. For a full discussion, see Boggs v. State, 270 Ala. 209, 116 So.2d For the errors pointed out, supra, in refusing certain c......
-
Jordan v. State, 7 Div. 715
...his failure to do so. The charge should have been given. Thomas v. State, 139 Ala. 80, 84, 36 So. 734, 735 (1903); Salvadori v. State, 33 Ala.App. 372, 33 So.2d 752 (1948); Swindle v. State, 50 Ala.App. 403, 279 So.2d 574 (1973); Perry v. State, Ala., 368 So.2d 310 (1979); White v. State, A......