Johnson v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Johnson v. State

141 Ala. 37

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 15, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 141 Ala. 37 (Johnson 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

Johnson v. State, 141 Ala. 37 (Ala. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

HAHALSON, J.

The only question presented for re-view was tlie request of the court to give six charges asked by defendant. In respect, of these the bill of exceptions recites: “The defendant asked that the following charges in writing be given by the court to the jury, to-wit.” Here follows the charges from 1 to 6, inclusive. At the end of the. 6th charge appear the words, “The court refused to give such charges, and the defendant duly excepted.’’ The request for these charges, as well as exception to the action of the court in refusing them, was general. Under such conditions, the exception was unavailing, unless all the charges should have been given. — Rarden v. Cunningham, 136 Ala. 263; Verberg v. State, 137 Ala. 73.

The first five charges are so manifestly incorrect, as to require no special consideration.

Defendant’s counsel admit that some of these charges were bad, and the only one insisted on by him, was the refusal of the court to give the 6th charge. That charge was misleading and incorrect. It singles out a part of the evidence, without reference to the other parts, and leaves it to the jury to determine the elements of self-defense.

Affirmed.

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

HAHALSON, J.

The only question presented for re-view was tlie request of the court to give six charges asked by defendant. In respect, of these the bill of exceptions recites: “The defendant asked that the following charges in writing be given by the court to the jury, to-wit.” Here follows the charges from 1 to 6, inclusive. At the end of the. 6th charge appear the words, “The court refused to give such charges, and the defendant duly excepted.’’ The request for these charges, as well as exception to the action of the court in refusing them, was general. Under such conditions, the exception was unavailing, unless all the charges should have been given. — Rarden v. Cunningham, 136 Ala. 263; Verberg v. State, 137 Ala. 73.

The first five charges are so manifestly incorrect, as to require no special consideration.

Defendant’s counsel admit that some of these charges were bad, and the only one insisted on by him, was the refusal of the court to give the 6th charge. That charge was misleading and incorrect. It singles out a part of the evidence, without reference to the other parts, and leaves it to the jury to determine the elements of self-defense.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 Ala. 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-ala-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack