Alexander v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Alexander v. State

109 So. 528, 21 Ala. App. 497, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 247

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 1, 1926

Docket6 Div. 978.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 109 So. 528 (Alexander v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. State, 109 So. 528, 21 Ala. App. 497, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 247 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of having carnal knowledge of a girl over 12 and under 16 years of age. He was given the minimum penalty prescribed by law.

Upon a careful reading of the testimony we find that a conviction of the defendant did depend upon the testimony of Freda Mae Kemp. It follows that, upon the authority of Dunn v. State, 19 Ala. App. 576, 99 So. 154, a case decided by this court, aud the cases therein cited, it was prejudicial error to refuse to give defendant’s requested written charge No. 3. We can see no distinguishing features between this charge, in so far as principle is concerned, and the charge held good in the said Dunn Case.

It was in our opinion altogether immaterial as to whether or not the act of sexual intercourse alleged to have been had was painful. Testimony as to this phase of the occurrence should not have been allowed. However, we would not he willing to reverse the case because of its admission, standing alone, since it might be fairly said to come within the scope or range of the res gestse. Certainly it had to do with the res.

The other rulings complained of will not likely occur upon another trial. We do not think, anyway, they probably affected the verdict.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of having carnal knowledge of a girl over 12 and under 16 years of age. He was given the minimum penalty prescribed by law.

Upon a careful reading of the testimony we find that a conviction of the defendant did depend upon the testimony of Freda Mae Kemp. It follows that, upon the authority of Dunn v. State, 19 Ala. App. 576, 99 So. 154, a case decided by this court, aud the cases therein cited, it was prejudicial error to refuse to give defendant’s requested written charge No. 3. We can see no distinguishing features between this charge, in so far as principle is concerned, and the charge held good in the said Dunn Case.

It was in our opinion altogether immaterial as to whether or not the act of sexual intercourse alleged to have been had was painful. Testimony as to this phase of the occurrence should not have been allowed. However, we would not he willing to reverse the case because of its admission, standing alone, since it might be fairly said to come within the scope or range of the res gestse. Certainly it had to do with the res.

The other rulings complained of will not likely occur upon another trial. We do not think, anyway, they probably affected the verdict.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 528, 21 Ala. App. 497, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack