Byrd v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Byrd v. State

104 So. 830, 213 Ala. 333, 1925 Ala. LEXIS 310

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 11, 1925

Docket8 Div. 721.

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 104 So. 830 (Byrd 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

Byrd v. State, 104 So. 830, 213 Ala. 333, 1925 Ala. LEXIS 310 (Ala. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

The giving of general affirmative instructions by the court has been frequently considered in civil and criminal cases. McMillan v. Aiken, 205 Ala. 35, 88 So. 135.

It is the province of the jury, and not the court, to draw inference of fact from the evidence susceptible of adverse inference. That is to say, when applied to criminal cases, the court may announce presumptions of law to the jury; the inferences of fact are for the jury in arriving at a verdict. The weight of evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence, where susceptible of more than one rational conclusion, are for the jury alone. Dillard v. State, 151 Ala. 92, 44 So. 396; Kennedy v. State, 147. Ala. 687, 688, 40 So. 658 ; 2 Hornsby v. State, 94 Ala. 55, 10 So. 522; Gibson v. State, 89 Ala. 121, 8 So. 98, 18 Am. St. Rep. 96; Hadly v. State, 55 Ala. 37; Mitchell v. State, 60 Ala. 28; Henderson v. State, 49 Ala. 20.

The defendant, appellant, being tried under an indictment for murder in- the first degree, was, according to the evidence, upon trial for murder or manslaughter. The defendant was permitted, without objection, and contrary to the rule of evidence obtaining in this jurisdiction, to declare his mental status or intent at the time of inflicting the blow that caused the death of Erskine Elmore. There was error in giving charge No. 2 at the request of the state, for the intention of the defendant when he struck the fatal blow was for the jury. If the state’s evidence was to be believed, the jury could have reached the conclusion that defendant intended to kill when he struck the blow, but this was a conclusion of fact that only the jury may draw under the evidence — ■ presenting a conflict.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J.. and SOMERVIDLE and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

2

Reported in lull in the Southern Reporter; not reported in full in Alabama Reports.

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

THOMAS, J.

The giving of general affirmative instructions by the court has been frequently considered in civil and criminal cases. McMillan v. Aiken, 205 Ala. 35, 88 So. 135.

It is the province of the jury, and not the court, to draw inference of fact from the evidence susceptible of adverse inference. That is to say, when applied to criminal cases, the court may announce presumptions of law to the jury; the inferences of fact are for the jury in arriving at a verdict. The weight of evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence, where susceptible of more than one rational conclusion, are for the jury alone. Dillard v. State, 151 Ala. 92, 44 So. 396; Kennedy v. State, 147. Ala. 687, 688, 40 So. 658 ; 2 Hornsby v. State, 94 Ala. 55, 10 So. 522; Gibson v. State, 89 Ala. 121, 8 So. 98, 18 Am. St. Rep. 96; Hadly v. State, 55 Ala. 37; Mitchell v. State, 60 Ala. 28; Henderson v. State, 49 Ala. 20.

The defendant, appellant, being tried under an indictment for murder in- the first degree, was, according to the evidence, upon trial for murder or manslaughter. The defendant was permitted, without objection, and contrary to the rule of evidence obtaining in this jurisdiction, to declare his mental status or intent at the time of inflicting the blow that caused the death of Erskine Elmore. There was error in giving charge No. 2 at the request of the state, for the intention of the defendant when he struck the fatal blow was for the jury. If the state’s evidence was to be believed, the jury could have reached the conclusion that defendant intended to kill when he struck the blow, but this was a conclusion of fact that only the jury may draw under the evidence — ■ presenting a conflict.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J.. and SOMERVIDLE and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

2

Reported in lull in the Southern Reporter; not reported in full in Alabama Reports.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 So. 830, 213 Ala. 333, 1925 Ala. LEXIS 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrd-v-state-ala-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack