King v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

King v. State

44 So. 200, 151 Ala. 12, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 526

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 5, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 44 So. 200 (King 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

King v. State, 44 So. 200, 151 Ala. 12, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 526 (Ala. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

The appellant ivas convicted of an assault with intent to murder one Rabb. The bill of exceptions recites that “the evidence on the part of the state tended to establish the following facts: * * *” The defendant offered no testimony. The “facts” tended to be established by the evidence were to the effect that the defendant waylaid the victim and shot him. The general affirmative charge was given for the state. This was error. Such an instruction took from the jury the right to weigh the testimony, which did not necessarily establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but tended only to that result. — Brewer’s Case, 113 Ala. 106, 21 South. 355.

In regard to the statute of limitations, the bénefit of which the appellant sought by a request for an instruction directing his acquittal, this record does not affirmatively show that the warrant issued by the judge of the county court ivas for the offense, or a lesser degree thereof, for which appellant was indicted. The commencement of the prosecution (section 5074, Code 1896), which suspends the operation of the statute of limitations, must be of an offense a continuance of which is found in that charged in the indictment.— Green’s Case, 139 Ala. 157, 36 South. 773.

For the error indicated, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and Anderson, JJ., concur.

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

McCLELLAN, J.

The appellant ivas convicted of an assault with intent to murder one Rabb. The bill of exceptions recites that “the evidence on the part of the state tended to establish the following facts: * * *” The defendant offered no testimony. The “facts” tended to be established by the evidence were to the effect that the defendant waylaid the victim and shot him. The general affirmative charge was given for the state. This was error. Such an instruction took from the jury the right to weigh the testimony, which did not necessarily establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but tended only to that result. — Brewer’s Case, 113 Ala. 106, 21 South. 355.

In regard to the statute of limitations, the bénefit of which the appellant sought by a request for an instruction directing his acquittal, this record does not affirmatively show that the warrant issued by the judge of the county court ivas for the offense, or a lesser degree thereof, for which appellant was indicted. The commencement of the prosecution (section 5074, Code 1896), which suspends the operation of the statute of limitations, must be of an offense a continuance of which is found in that charged in the indictment.— Green’s Case, 139 Ala. 157, 36 South. 773.

For the error indicated, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and Anderson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 So. 200, 151 Ala. 12, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-state-ala-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack