Christian v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Christian v. State

124 So. 745, 23 Ala. App. 322, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 258

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 26, 1929

Docket1 Div. 869.

StatusPublished

This text of 124 So. 745 (Christian 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

Christian v. State, 124 So. 745, 23 Ala. App. 322, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 258 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

We find no testimony of a “positive,” as distinguished from a “circumstantial,” nature, in the record, of the guilt of appellant. As was said by Mr. Chief Justice Stone in the case of Salm v. State, 89 Ala. 56, 8 So. 66, 67, so we say here: “There was positive testimony of facts, including the conduct of the defendant, from which it was doubtless contended his guilt should be inferred, but it was not positive testimony of guilt.”

In this situation — the same not being covered by or included in the trial court’s otherwise comprehensive oral charge, nor by any written requested charge — we hold it was reversible error for the court to refuse to give to the jury appellant’s written requested charge No. 4. Salm v. State, 89 Ala. 56, 8 So. 66; James v. State, 22 Ala. App. 183, 113 So. 648.

There is apparent no other question deemed by us necessary to be decided.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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