Craut v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Craut v. State

79 So. 768, 16 Ala. App. 548, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 225

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided June 29, 1918·No. 6 Div. 418.·Published

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of assault with intent to ravish. There was evidence which, if believed, tends to sustain the verdict of the jury. The only questions presented arise from the refusal of certain special charges requested by the defendant.

Charge 1, the affirmative charge, was properly refused. The question of the defendant’s guilt, under the evidence, was for the jury.

[1,2] Charges 2, 7, and 8 were all argumentative, and were properly refused for that reason. Moreover, the propositions which these charges undertake to state were clearly covered by the oral charge of the court and the charges given at the request of the defendant.

We find' no reversible error in the record.

Affirmed.

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

BROWN, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of assault with intent to ravish. There was evidence which, if believed, tends to sustain the verdict of the jury. The only questions presented arise from the refusal of certain special charges requested by the defendant.

Charge 1, the affirmative charge, was properly refused. The question of the defendant’s guilt, under the evidence, was for the jury.

[1,2] Charges 2, 7, and 8 were all argumentative, and were properly refused for that reason. Moreover, the propositions which these charges undertake to state were clearly covered by the oral charge of the court and the charges given at the request of the defendant.

We find' no reversible error in the record.

Affirmed.

Craut v. State, 79 So. 768, 16 Ala. App. 548, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 225 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

79 So. 768 (Craut v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.