Dorman v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Dorman v. State

106 So. 896, 21 Ala. App. 240, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 352

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 15, 1925

Docket5 Div. 594.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 106 So. 896 (Dorman 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

Dorman v. State, 106 So. 896, 21 Ala. App. 240, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 352 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Under an indictment charging murder in the first degree, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and given a sentence of three years in the penitentiary.

All the proceedings were regular, and the actual trial appears to have been carefully and correctly conducted. It would be of no benefit to discuss or detail the evidence. It was ample to support the verdict returned.

Refusing to permit the question, on rebuttal, to the witness Lawson, “Did you see Mr. Slaughter take a pistol off of Mr. Turn-ham. (the deceased)?” to be answered, was within the sound discretion of the court, and we see no abuse of same in his action. Lambert v. State, 93 So. 708, 208 Ala. 42.

Each of the written charges of defendant, the refusal to give which is complained of here, have been critically examined by us, in connection with the oral charge of the court and the charges given at defendant’s request, and it is clear that, where stating a correct principle of law, they were rendered unnecessary by virtue of the fact that the same principle was substantially, we might almost say literally, covered by and included in the said oral charge. We find nothing anywhere of 'which the appellant can justly complain, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

Under an indictment charging murder in the first degree, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and given a sentence of three years in the penitentiary.

All the proceedings were regular, and the actual trial appears to have been carefully and correctly conducted. It would be of no benefit to discuss or detail the evidence. It was ample to support the verdict returned.

Refusing to permit the question, on rebuttal, to the witness Lawson, “Did you see Mr. Slaughter take a pistol off of Mr. Turn-ham. (the deceased)?” to be answered, was within the sound discretion of the court, and we see no abuse of same in his action. Lambert v. State, 93 So. 708, 208 Ala. 42.

Each of the written charges of defendant, the refusal to give which is complained of here, have been critically examined by us, in connection with the oral charge of the court and the charges given at defendant’s request, and it is clear that, where stating a correct principle of law, they were rendered unnecessary by virtue of the fact that the same principle was substantially, we might almost say literally, covered by and included in the said oral charge. We find nothing anywhere of 'which the appellant can justly complain, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 So. 896, 21 Ala. App. 240, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorman-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack