Bryant v. State

64 So. 333, 185 Ala. 8, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 74
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 15, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 64 So. 333 (Bryant v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bryant v. State, 64 So. 333, 185 Ala. 8, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 74 (Ala. 1914).

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

The appellant Avas adjudged guilty of murder in the second degree. The victim was [12]*12her husband, Robert Bryant. The only questions reserved for review7 and argued in brief for appellant relate to the refusal of the court to grant a continuance because of the health of the defendant, and to the refusal of five special written charges requested for the defendant.

The evidence before the trial court shows that tribunal to have been cautious in ascertaining the physical condition of the accused before proceeding with the trial. Without attempting to restate the evidence touching the matter, it w7ill suffice to say that after full consideration of the facts and circumstances before the trial court no doubt of the propriety and fairness of the court’s action is possible.

It is asserted in brief that refused (to defendant) charge 10 was a duplicate of charge 32 approved in Black v. State, 5 Ala. App. 87, 59 South. 692. As set forth in this transcript, such is not the case. Indeed, a.s this record shows, charge 10 is not, in several respects, intelligible. There was no error in its refusal..

Charges 6 and 7, refused to defendant, are of the class of special instructions repeatedly condemned by this court as being argumentative.

Charge 13, refused to defendant, was duplicated in charge 1, given at defendant’s instance.

Charge 12, refused to defendant, was, if intelligible and not otherwise bad, faulty, for that it forbade a conviction of the accused without hypothesizing her freedom from fault in provoking the difficulty. It w7as properly refused.

There is no error in the record. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, Sayre, and Somerville, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Nichols v. State
100 So. 2d 750 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1958)
Redwine v. State
61 So. 2d 715 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1952)
Odom v. State
46 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1950)
Scott v. State
37 So. 2d 670 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1948)
McIntosh v. State
36 So. 2d 109 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1948)
Phelps v. State
30 So. 2d 38 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1947)
Burns v. State
145 So. 436 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 So. 333, 185 Ala. 8, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-state-ala-1914.