Byers v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Byers v. State

121 So. 8, 23 Ala. App. 70, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 60

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 5, 1929

Docket7 Div. 496.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 121 So. 8 (Byers 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

Byers v. State, 121 So. 8, 23 Ala. App. 70, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 60 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

Motion was made by defendant for a continuance of his case on the ground that jurors from which he was to select a jury were present in court and heard the testimony in the case of State v. Caldwell, in which Caldwell was being tried for the unlawful possession of the still here involved. Upon examination it was ascertained that four of the jurors on the regular panel were present and heard the testimony in the Caldwell Case, but they each said that they had not formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The granting of a continuance under these facts was within the sound discretion of the court. Sandlin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 583, 99 So. 784; Cline v. State, 20 Ala. App. 578, 104 So. 347 ; Sanders v. State, 22 Ala. App. 358, 116 So. 329.

Refused charge, which we have numbered 4, is an argument pure and simple.

Refused charge, which we have numbered 6, is confusing and has a tendency to mislead. The jury was fully chárged upon the law of reasonable doubt. Such charges as No. 6 are calculated to confuse the minds of the jury and should never be given.

Causes must be tried on the evidence adduced on the trial, and not on the absence of testimony. For this reason charge 5 was properly refused.

After the charges given at the request of the defendant were read to the jury, the court gave some explanations regarding them; but no exception was reserved to this, and hence this point is not considered-.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

Motion was made by defendant for a continuance of his case on the ground that jurors from which he was to select a jury were present in court and heard the testimony in the case of State v. Caldwell, in which Caldwell was being tried for the unlawful possession of the still here involved. Upon examination it was ascertained that four of the jurors on the regular panel were present and heard the testimony in the Caldwell Case, but they each said that they had not formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The granting of a continuance under these facts was within the sound discretion of the court. Sandlin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 583, 99 So. 784; Cline v. State, 20 Ala. App. 578, 104 So. 347 ; Sanders v. State, 22 Ala. App. 358, 116 So. 329.

Refused charge, which we have numbered 4, is an argument pure and simple.

Refused charge, which we have numbered 6, is confusing and has a tendency to mislead. The jury was fully chárged upon the law of reasonable doubt. Such charges as No. 6 are calculated to confuse the minds of the jury and should never be given.

Causes must be tried on the evidence adduced on the trial, and not on the absence of testimony. For this reason charge 5 was properly refused.

After the charges given at the request of the defendant were read to the jury, the court gave some explanations regarding them; but no exception was reserved to this, and hence this point is not considered-.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 So. 8, 23 Ala. App. 70, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byers-v-state-alactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack