Hawkins v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hawkins v. State

74 So. 739, 15 Ala. App. 626, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 67

DecidedMarch 23, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 74 So. 739 (Hawkins 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

Hawkins v. State, 74 So. 739, 15 Ala. App. 626, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 67 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

The court has inspected the original indictment transmitted to the court under the rule, and finds that the name of the person alleged to be the owner of the property as laid in the indictment is “Jim Tank.” ' This disposes of the appellant’s contention that there was a variance between the averments and proof.

Under the evidence in the case the court erred in refusing the following charge requested by defendant: “If, after considering all the evidence, the jury have a reasonable doubt whether defendant took the cow unlawfully, or whether he purchased it in good faith from Hardin, they will find the defendant not guilty.”

We have examined the oral charge of the court, and hold that it does not render harmless the refusal of this charge.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BROWN, P. J.

The court has inspected the original indictment transmitted to the court under the rule, and finds that the name of the person alleged to be the owner of the property as laid in the indictment is “Jim Tank.” ' This disposes of the appellant’s contention that there was a variance between the averments and proof.

Under the evidence in the case the court erred in refusing the following charge requested by defendant: “If, after considering all the evidence, the jury have a reasonable doubt whether defendant took the cow unlawfully, or whether he purchased it in good faith from Hardin, they will find the defendant not guilty.”

We have examined the oral charge of the court, and hold that it does not render harmless the refusal of this charge.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 So. 739, 15 Ala. App. 626, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-state-alactapp-1917.