Bryant v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Bryant v. State

17 So. 2d 427, 31 Ala. App. 355, 1944 Ala. App. LEXIS 311

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 28, 1944

Docket6 Div. 24.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 17 So. 2d 427 (Bryant 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

Bryant v. State, 17 So. 2d 427, 31 Ala. App. 355, 1944 Ala. App. LEXIS 311 (Ala. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

*356 SIMPSON, Judge.

Robert Bryant shot and seriously wounded Joe Ellis and was convicted of assault with intent to murder. From a sentence of three years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary, he presents this appeal.

Cause of the affray seems to have been a former altercation between the two negroes, because Joe had accused Robert of going with his “old lady.” There is really not much to be said.

The contention is unsustainable that the trial court should have ordered a new trial because, allegedly, the preponderance of evidence was against the verdict. The evidence was sharply conflictory, that for the State fully sustaining the verdict returned, and that for the defendant tending to support his plea of self defense. To have disturbed the verdict under these conditions would have been unauthorized. Chaney v. State, 29 Ala.App. 225, 194 So. 700; Brown v. State, 30 Ala.App. 5, 200 So. 637, certiorari denied, 240 Ala. 648, 200 So. 640.

Nor can error be rested upon the trial court’s action in admitting testimony of the nature and extent of the victim’s wounds and the length of time he was confined as a result of such wounds. This evidence was material to the issue of intent to kill (Bodine v. State, 18 Ala.App. 514, 93 So. 264), and has been held relevant as of the res gestae of the offense (Phillips v. State, 161 Ala. 60; 64, 49 So. 794).

Likewise, there was no error in refusing the special written charges requested by defendant. They were either sufficiently covered in the oral and given charges, or were incorrect statements of the applicable law.

Affirmed.

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

*356 SIMPSON, Judge.

Robert Bryant shot and seriously wounded Joe Ellis and was convicted of assault with intent to murder. From a sentence of three years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary, he presents this appeal.

Cause of the affray seems to have been a former altercation between the two negroes, because Joe had accused Robert of going with his “old lady.” There is really not much to be said.

The contention is unsustainable that the trial court should have ordered a new trial because, allegedly, the preponderance of evidence was against the verdict. The evidence was sharply conflictory, that for the State fully sustaining the verdict returned, and that for the defendant tending to support his plea of self defense. To have disturbed the verdict under these conditions would have been unauthorized. Chaney v. State, 29 Ala.App. 225, 194 So. 700; Brown v. State, 30 Ala.App. 5, 200 So. 637, certiorari denied, 240 Ala. 648, 200 So. 640.

Nor can error be rested upon the trial court’s action in admitting testimony of the nature and extent of the victim’s wounds and the length of time he was confined as a result of such wounds. This evidence was material to the issue of intent to kill (Bodine v. State, 18 Ala.App. 514, 93 So. 264), and has been held relevant as of the res gestae of the offense (Phillips v. State, 161 Ala. 60; 64, 49 So. 794).

Likewise, there was no error in refusing the special written charges requested by defendant. They were either sufficiently covered in the oral and given charges, or were incorrect statements of the applicable law.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 So. 2d 427, 31 Ala. App. 355, 1944 Ala. App. LEXIS 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-state-alactapp-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack