Windle v. State, 3 Div. 483
Decision Date | 20 April 1976 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 483 |
Parties | Matthew WINDLE v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
George H. B. Mathews, Montgomery, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Jane LeCroy Robbins, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, appellee.
The only question presented by appellant is whether the judgment of conviction should be reversed by reason of the omission from the court's oral charge (to which there was neither an objection nor an exception) of the principle that the presumption of innocence attends defendant As a matter of evidence.
Appellant leans heavily upon Davis v. State, 284 Ala. 135, 222 So.2d 719 (1969), in which it was held that the refusal to give a written charge that defendant '. . . is presumed by law to be innocent, and that presumption of innocence attends him, as a matter of evidence . . .' was reversible error, in the absence of a covering of the principle by some portion of the court's oral charge or by some given written charge.
Neither in the oral charge nor in any written charge given in this case was it stated that the presumption of innocence attends a defendant As a matter of evidence.
Appellant cites Jones v. U.S., 113 U.S.App.D.C. 352, 308 F.2d 307 (1962); U.S. v. Levy, 153 F.2d 995 (3d Cir. 1946); Findley v. U.S., 362 F.2d 921 (10th Cir. 1966), in support of his contention that even in the absence of a request for a particular instruction and in the absence of any objection or exception to the court's oral charge, there can be an omission of such important principles as to necessitate a reversal. In Jones and Findley, there was a failure to make it clear to the jury that the burden of proof was upon the state to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of a particular essential element of the crime charged. Although the trial court charged generally on the necessity for proof of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, the charge as a whole could have reasonably been construed to the effect that it was not necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of one particular essential element thereof. In U.S. v. Levy, supra, it was said:
The crime charged in the instant case was murder in the first degree. The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree. The court charged fully and correctly as to the elements of murder in both degrees and manslaughter in both degrees. The court stated in its oral charge:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Posey v. State
...34 So.2d 692, cert. denied 250 Ala. 409, 34 So.2d 700. This Court so held as recently as April 20, 1976 in the case of Windle v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 331 So.2d 420. Upon first impression there is a statement contained in the opinion in the case of Fulghum v. State, 291 Ala. 71, 277 So.2d 886......
- Burr v. State, 8 Div. 467