Buford v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Buford v. State

31 So. 714, 132 Ala. 6, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 94

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 13, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 31 So. 714 (Buford 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

Buford v. State, 31 So. 714, 132 Ala. 6, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 94 (Ala. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

SHARPE, J.

In the record there is evidence sufficient at least to afford an inference that, defendant went to.the place where LeGrand shot at Knowles and was there present at the shooting for the • purpose of aiding or-by his presence'encouraging'LeGrand to attack KnowlCs. To determine whether such was. the true inference was for the jury and for the court to have given the general affirmative charge requested by the defendant would have been an invasion of the jury’s province.

Charge 2 was properly refused. To- fix' criminal responsibility on defendant it was not necessary for the jury to find both that he conspired to commit the offense before coming to the place of its commission, and that he actually aided LeGrand in committing it as is -assumed in that -charge.— Amos v. State, 83 Ala. 1; Raiford v. State, 59 Ala. 106.

Affirmed.

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

SHARPE, J.

In the record there is evidence sufficient at least to afford an inference that, defendant went to.the place where LeGrand shot at Knowles and was there present at the shooting for the • purpose of aiding or-by his presence'encouraging'LeGrand to attack KnowlCs. To determine whether such was. the true inference was for the jury and for the court to have given the general affirmative charge requested by the defendant would have been an invasion of the jury’s province.

Charge 2 was properly refused. To- fix' criminal responsibility on defendant it was not necessary for the jury to find both that he conspired to commit the offense before coming to the place of its commission, and that he actually aided LeGrand in committing it as is -assumed in that -charge.— Amos v. State, 83 Ala. 1; Raiford v. State, 59 Ala. 106.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 So. 714, 132 Ala. 6, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buford-v-state-ala-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack