Stevens v. State
| Decision Date | 28 November 1912 |
| Citation | 6 Ala.App. 6,60 So. 459 |
| Parties | STEVENS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Monroe County; W. G. McCorvey Judge.
Sam Stevens was convicted of assault and battery, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The killing was alleged to have been the result of striking Betty Stevens with a buggy whip.
Charge 3 is as follows: "Before the jury can convict the defendant, they must be satisfied not only to a moral certainty not only that the proof is inconsistent with defendant's guilt, but that it is wholly inconsistent with every other rational conclusion, and unless the jury are so convinced by the evidence of the defendant's guilt that they would each venture to act upon that decision in matters of the highest concern and importance to his interests, then they must find the defendant not guilty."
Charge 4. "I charge you, gentlemen, that the only just foundation for a verdict of guilty in this case is that the entire jury shall believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty, that the defendant is guilty as charged in this indictment, to the exclusion of every probability of his innocence, and every reasonable doubt of his guilt; and if the prosecutor has failed to furnish the aforesaid measure of proof, and to impress the minds of the jury with such belief of defendant's guilt, the jury should find him not guilty."
H. H McClelland and J. D. Ratcliffe, both of Monroeville, for appellant.
R. C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Some of the rulings of the trial court which are criticised in the brief of the counsel for the appellant are so obviously unobjectionable or not prejudicial to the appellant that a discussion of them is not deemed necessary.
Dr. G W. Gaillard, a witness for the defendant, testified as an expert in reference to the effect upon a pregnant woman of a blow inflicted upon her with a buggy whip. In the course of his examination on this subject by the defendant's counsel, he made the following statement: "In other words, she could not be up and attending to domestic duties afterwards, and the effect upon the woman would have to be greater than the evidence in this case has shown." Thereupon, as stated by the bill of exceptions, the state moved to exclude the testimony about the result of the evidence. An exception was reserved to the granting of this motion....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waller v. State
...Ala. 52, 50 So. 59; Daniels v. State, 243 Ala. 675, 11 So.2d 756; Robinson v. State, 243 Ala. 684, 11 So.2d 732. See, also, Stevens v. State, 6 Ala.App. 6, 60 So. 459; Davis v. State, 8 Ala.App. 147, 62 So. 1027; Lewis v. State, 14 Ala.App. 72, 71 So. 617; Minor v. State, 15 Ala.App. 556, 7......
-
Ware v. State
... ... was for the jury to say ... There ... was no error in that part of the oral charge, excepted to on ... page 59 of the record. Malachi v. State, 89 Ala ... 134, 8 So. 104 ... Charges ... 3 and 15 were argumentative. Stevens v. State, 6 ... Ala.App. 6, 60 So. 459 ... Charge ... 17, if a correct exposition of the law, was covered by given ... charge 16 ... [12 ... Ala.App. 115] Charge 28, though held good in Fleming v ... State, 150 Ala. 19, 43 So. 219, and Adams v ... State, 175 Ala. 11, ... ...
-
Crews v. State
...Refused charge 17 had been approved and its refusal error in the following cases: Fetner v. State (Ala.App.) 113 So. 467; Stevens v. State, 6 Ala.App. 6, 60 So. 459; Brown v. State, 118 Ala. 111, 23 So. 81; v. State, 20 Ala.App. 195, 101 So. 286; Veasey v. State, 20 Ala.App. 478, 103 So. 67......
- Naugher v. State