Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 20 February 1888
• Citation: 3 So. 743,83 Ala. 68
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

3 So. 743

83 Ala. 68

WILLIAMS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 20, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Cherokee county; JAMES AIKEN, Judge.

Indictment against Cicero Williams for disturbing religious worship. The defendant pleaded not guilty, was convicted, and fined $20. On the trial, as the bill of exceptions shows, the state introduced several witnesses, who testified, in substance that they were present at a meeting held for religious worship, within 12 months before the finding of the indictment, when the defendant came in, "wearing a pair of false mustaches; that he went forward, while the preacher was calling for mourners, and extended his hand to the preacher, and then returned to his seat;" and that this excited laughter among the persons sitting in the back part of the church; but they further testified, on cross-examination, that the laughter was not loud, and the services proceeded without interruption. The defendant offered in evidence a statement under oath as to the testimony of the absent witnesses, to the effect that they were present at the meeting referred to, and saw the defendant there; "that he did nothing calculated to interrupt or disturb such religious worship, and that said worship was not disturbed or interrupted by any act of said defendant." It was admitted that the witnesses, if present, would testify as stated; but the court excluded the evidence, "because it was a mere conclusion of the witness," and the defendant excepted. The court charged the jury orally as follows: "The burden of proof is on the state to satisfy the jury, beyond all reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant. If the jury believe from the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant within twelve months before the finding of this indictment and in this county, willfully interrupted or disturbed an assemblage of people met for religious worship, by noise profane discourse, or rude or indecent behavior, at or near the place of worship, then they will find the defendant guilty. It is not insisted that the defendant made any noise, or used any profane language; but the jury may see from the evidence whether he was not guilty of rude or indecent behavior." To the last part of this charge, the defendant excepted. The court charged the jury, also, "that if they believed from the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant intentionally did an act which disturbed or interrupted any part of the assembly met for religious worship, they may find him guilty;" also, "that it was not necessary that the services should be broken off, but would be sufficient if any part of the assemblage had their minds diverted from the religious services by the acts of the defendant, if there were such acts." To each of these "sentences," or parts of the oral charge, the defendant excepted. The court charged the jury, also, "that if the defendant purposely did an act, the natural tendency of which was to disturb or interfere with the quiet and order of an assembly met for religious worship, and the quiet and order of such assemblage was in fact disturbed thereby, then they must find the defendant guilty as charged;" and to this charge the defendant also excepted. The defendant requested the following charges in writing, and duly excepted to the refusal of each: (1) "Unless the jury find from the evidence that the defendant was in a congregation by whom he was previously known, then they cannot find that he was in disguise or ridiculous attitude, unless they further find that the...