Harris v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Harris v. State

123 Ala. 69

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 15, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 123 Ala. 69 (Harris 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

Harris v. State, 123 Ala. 69 (Ala. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

TYSON, J.

There was no error in allowing the prosecuting witness to testify to her physical condition at the [72]*72time of the alleged assault and .battery by the defendant upon her.

Charges 1 and 2 refused to the defendant do not negative the willingness of the defendant to enter into the fight. She may not have done anything to have brought about the difficulty, and yet she would be guilty of an assault and battery if she struck the prosecuting witness in a mutual combat, or if she struck a blow after the necessity to strike had passed.—Howell v. The State, 79 Ala. 284.

Charge 3 requested by the defendant was copied from a charge in the case of Bryant v. State, 116 Ala. 446, where it was held to assert a correct proposition of law on the authority of Newsom v. The State, 107 Ala. 134. The court erred in refusing it.

Charge 4 refused to the defendant as it apepars in the record is unintelligible. This may have grown out of a mistake in copying it. However, we do not know this to be true and must pass upon its sufficiency as it appears in the record. There was no error in refusing it.

For the error pointed out the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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

TYSON, J.

There was no error in allowing the prosecuting witness to testify to her physical condition at the [72]*72time of the alleged assault and .battery by the defendant upon her.

Charges 1 and 2 refused to the defendant do not negative the willingness of the defendant to enter into the fight. She may not have done anything to have brought about the difficulty, and yet she would be guilty of an assault and battery if she struck the prosecuting witness in a mutual combat, or if she struck a blow after the necessity to strike had passed.—Howell v. The State, 79 Ala. 284.

Charge 3 requested by the defendant was copied from a charge in the case of Bryant v. State, 116 Ala. 446, where it was held to assert a correct proposition of law on the authority of Newsom v. The State, 107 Ala. 134. The court erred in refusing it.

Charge 4 refused to the defendant as it apepars in the record is unintelligible. This may have grown out of a mistake in copying it. However, we do not know this to be true and must pass upon its sufficiency as it appears in the record. There was no error in refusing it.

For the error pointed out the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 Ala. 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-state-ala-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack