Lawman v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Lawman v. State

93 So. 69, 98 So. 69, 18 Ala. App. 569

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 1922

Docket7 Div. 769.

StatusPublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 93 So. 69 (Lawman 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

Lawman v. State, 93 So. 69, 98 So. 69, 18 Ala. App. 569 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinions

Among other things, the act approved September 25, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 815), provides: "The refusal of a charge, though a correct statement of the law, shall not be cause for a reversal on appeal, if it appears that the same rule of law was substantially and fairly given to the jury in the court's general charge or in charges given at the request of the parties." The only difference between specially requested instruction 5 (the refusal of which was held to be error in Taylor v. State, 17 Ala. App. 28, 81 So. 364) and given charge 1, as reproduced in the certificate of the Court of Appeals, ante, is that the former (charge 5) names a particular witness, and the latter (charge 1) refers, generally, to "any witness" found to have "willfully sworn falsely concerning any material point in the case." The greater includes the lesser. The generally applicable reference in charge 1 to "any witness" comprehended, necessarily, the witness named in refused request numbered 5. Since the proposition and subject-matter of request numbered 5 was given to the jury through the broader, yet equally applicable, terms employed in charge 1, the conclusion to reverse in Taylor v. State, supra, was erroneous, and that decision, in the particular under consideration, is unsound.

All the Justices concur.

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

Among other things, the act approved September 25, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 815), provides: "The refusal of a charge, though a correct statement of the law, shall not be cause for a reversal on appeal, if it appears that the same rule of law was substantially and fairly given to the jury in the court's general charge or in charges given at the request of the parties." The only difference between specially requested instruction 5 (the refusal of which was held to be error in Taylor v. State, 17 Ala. App. 28, 81 So. 364) and given charge 1, as reproduced in the certificate of the Court of Appeals, ante, is that the former (charge 5) names a particular witness, and the latter (charge 1) refers, generally, to "any witness" found to have "willfully sworn falsely concerning any material point in the case." The greater includes the lesser. The generally applicable reference in charge 1 to "any witness" comprehended, necessarily, the witness named in refused request numbered 5. Since the proposition and subject-matter of request numbered 5 was given to the jury through the broader, yet equally applicable, terms employed in charge 1, the conclusion to reverse in Taylor v. State, supra, was erroneous, and that decision, in the particular under consideration, is unsound.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 69, 98 So. 69, 18 Ala. App. 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawman-v-state-alactapp-1922.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack