Ware v. State
| Decision Date | 25 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 134 |
| Citation | 108 So. 645,21 Ala.App. 407 |
| Parties | WARE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Talladega County; R.B. Carr, Judge.
Luke Ware was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Merrill Field & Allen, of Anniston, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. H. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The defendant, charged by indictment with murder in the first degree, was on his trial convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of ten years.
The appellant insists that the court erred to a reversal in refusing to give at the request of defendant in writing this charge:
"The court charges the jury that before you can convict the defendant all of you jurors must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty."
This is equivalent to saying that the conclusion of the jury must be unanimous before a verdict can be rendered. This charge has many times been held to be good, and the cases cited by the Attorney General are not in point. But it is always doubtful whether the refusal of such a charge would injuriously affect the defendant's rights, especially where the entire oral charge of the court, and many written charges, refer to the jury as a unit and not as individuals. In this case the oral charge goes farther, and in express terms the jury is instructed:
This is a clear, concise, and forceful statement of the law on the subjects, and covers the principle embodied in refused charge 8.
The defendant testified in his own behalf, and the state offered testimony tending to impeach defendant's character for veracity. At the proper time the defendant requested the court in writing to give this charge:
"The court charges the jury that, if the defendant's testimony has not been impeached, then the jury has no right to capriciously reject his testimony."
This charge was less favorable to the defendant than it might have been. The jury may disregard the testimony of a witness for any legal reason, whether it be on account of impeachment of general character, contradictions, manner of giving testimony, or any other of the reasons entering into the weighing of testimony. Talley v. State, 174 Ala 101, 57 So. 445. But...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tooson v. State, 6 Div. 882
...71 So.2d 520; Code of Alabama 1940, Title 7, § 273. In regard to the fifth charge, we have not overlooked the holding in Ware v. State, 21 Ala.App. 407, 108 So. 645, but entertain the view that the holding in Ware is not controlling here in view of the trial court's oral charge which is unl......
-
Turner v. State
...v. State, 147 Ala. 79, 41 So. 761; Burkett v. State, 154 Ala. 19, 45 So. 682; Adams v. State, 175 Ala. 8, 57 So. 591; Ware v. State, 21 Ala.App. 407, 108 So. 645. We cannot put the trial judge in error for the refusal of charge 20 because it neglects a most important aspect of impeachment o......
-
Burkett v. State
...error will not be affirmed of its refusal. The reasons for the ruling against this assignment of error are satisfactorily stated in Ware v. State, 108 So. 645, and in Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General, 213 Ala. 104 So. 773. Furthermore, it pretermits consideration of the evidence. Dav......
-
Hawkins v. State
...has no right to capriciously reject his testimony.' While these charges were held to be correct propositions of law in Ware v. State, 21 Ala.App. 407, 108 So. 645, they are abstract charges when applied to the facts in this case. There was no testimony in this case tending to impeach appell......