Stinson v. State

• Decision Date: 22 January 1914
• Citation: Stinson v. State, 10 Ala.App. 110, 64 So. 507 (Ala. App. 1914)
• Parties: STINSON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

64 So. 507

10 Ala.App. 110

STINSON v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

January 22, 1914

Appeal from Shelby County Court; E.S. Lyman, Judge.

Furman Stinson was convicted of petit larceny, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Charge 1 is as follows: "The court charges the jury that if any of the state's witnesses have exhibited prejudice or anger against defendant, and satisfied you that they have not testified truly, and are not worthy of belief, and you think their testimony should be disregarded, you may disregard it altogether."

Riddle & Ellis, of Columbiana, for appellant.

R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and T.H. Seay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PELHAM, J.

Charge No. 1 requested in writing by the defendant and refused by the court is not covered by any written charge given at the instance of the defendant, and states a correct legal proposition as applied to the evidence in the case--that is it is not abstract--and the principle it asserts has often been approved, more than once in the exact language of this charge. Adams v. State, 175 Ala. 8, 57 So. 591; Naugher v. State, 6 Ala.App. 3, 60 So. 458; Hammond v. State, 147 Ala. 79, 41 So. 761; Burkett v. State, 154 Ala. 19, 45 So. 682; Chestnutt v. State, 7 Ala.App. 72, 61 So. 609.

There are other refused charges set out in the bill of exceptions some of them embodying the same, or practically the same proposition as charge No. 1; but we do not deem it necessary to discuss these charges or the ruling on the evidence, as they are not matters that will...