Shepherd v. State

Citation94 Ala. 102,10 So. 663
PartiesSHEPHERD v. STATE.
Decision Date25 February 1892
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Bibb county; J. R. DOWDELL, Judge.

Henry Shepherd was convicted of grand larceny, and sentenced to imprisonment for five years, from which he appeals. Affirmed.

The testimony on which the defendant was indicted was purely circumstantial, and is sufficiently shown in the opinion. The defendant separately excepted to the refusal to give each of the following written charges requested by him: (1) "The court charges the jury that if they believe the evidence they must find the defendant not guilty." (2) "The court charges the jury that under the evidence in this case they cannot consider the fact, if it be a fact, that there is no circumstance tending to show that any other person committed the crime, or has been charged with or suspected of the crime as a circumstance against the defendant." (3) "The court charges the jury that if any juror, before pronouncing a verdict of guilty, feels the desire for more evidence tending to show the guilt of defendant, then that juror has the reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt upon which the law requires him to acquit the defendant." (4) "The court charges the jury that the evidence in this case is entirely circumstantial; that humane provisions of the law are that a prisoner charged with a felony should not be convicted or circumstantial evidence, unless it shows by a full measure of proof that the defendant is guilty. Such proof is always insufficient unless it excludes to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis but that of the guilt of the accused. No matter how strong the circumstances if they can be reconciled with the theory that some other person may have done the act without the guilty agency or participation of the defendant, then the defendant is not shown to be guilty by that full measure of proof which the law requires." The bill of exceptions then recites "After the jury had retired to consider upon their verdict, the court directed them to be called back into the court-room, and, the jury having been brought back accordingly, the court gave them the following charge, which had been asked in writing by defendant before their retirement, but which the court had then refused to give, to which ruling of the court the defendant had duly reserved an exception: 'The court charges the jury that if the evidence is reasonably reconcilable with the theory that defendant acquired the property from the real thief, or that if the evidence is reasonably reconcilable with the theory that some one else was the guilty agent, then the jury must acquit the defendant.' After reading the charge to the jury, the court stated to the jury that, while he gave them the charge, they should take it in connection with the general charge of the court, and also with the further oral charge which he would give them, viz., that the jury could consider the fact of the recent possession of stolen goods unexplained, if they were satisfied from the evidence that such was the fact, as a circumstance showing that the party having such possession was the thief. To the giving of this additional oral charge by the court the defendant objected and, his objection being overruled, he duly reserved an exception to the giving of such charge.

Logan, Hargrove & Vande Graff, for appellant.

William L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

MCCLELLAN J.

The evidence tended to show that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Davis v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 27, 1913
  • State v. Eldredge, 1788
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • May 2, 1933
    ...it is the duty of the jury, under their oath, to find the Defendant guilty." This is assigned as error. We think it was. In Sheppard v. State, 94 Ala. 102, 10 So. 663, commenting on an instruction framed in this "The court charges the jury that if any juror, before pronouncing a verdict of ......
  • Ex parte Hill
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 22, 1924
    ...100 So. 315 211 Ala. 311EX PARTE HILL. HILL v. STATE. 5 Div. 892.Supreme Court of AlabamaMay 22, 1924 . Certiorari. to Court of Appeals. . . Petition. of Bud Hill for certiorari ......
  • Tatum v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 3, 1924
    ...81 So. 860, Jones v. State, 18 Ala. App. 116, 90 So. 135; McKenzie v. State (Ala. App.) 97 So. 155. Charge 4, condemned in Shepperd's Case, 94 Ala. 102, 10 So. 663, being an argument, is phrased differently from either of the charges in the case at bar. Charge 1, referred to, but not quoted......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT