PELHAM, P. J.
Refused charge No. 1 requested in behalf of the defendant (the general charge) was properly refused as the evidence set out in the bill of exceptions shows that the ques
tion of the defendant’s guilt of the greater offense charged against him, or of one of the lesser offenses included, was for the jury.
(1)
Charge No. 11 was substantially covered by the written charges given at the request of the defendant and the oral charge of the’court.
(2)
Charge E is misleading and in part abstract as applied to the facts, and was well refused.
(3)
Charge R predicates a finding by the jury on a knowledge of the unworthiness of belief of witnesses outside of the evidence.
(4)
That part of the oral charge of the court, to the effect that the defendant has no right to commit a breach of the peace in taking the money, although the person was not lawfully in possession of it, was free from
error.
— Danzey
v. State,
126 Ala. 15, 28 South. 697.
(5)
The court properly charged the jury that under the indictment for robbery a conviction could be had for larceny. Each of the lesser offenses of assault with intent to rob, assault, and battery, simple assault, or larceny are included in the greater
offense.
— Rambo
v. State,
134 Ala. 71, 32 South. 650;
Smith v. State,
11 Ala. App. 153, 65 South. 693.
We have examined the whole record, and find no error, or other question that requires discussion.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI