Moore v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Moore v. State

45 So. 656, 154 Ala. 48, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 531

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 6, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 45 So. 656 (Moore 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

Moore v. State, 45 So. 656, 154 Ala. 48, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 531 (Ala. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

DOWDELL, J.

The defendant was indicted for an assault with intent to murder, and was convicted of an assault and battery.

The objection to the question asked the witness Crittenden was properly overruled. The objection was general, and the evidence called for was not patently irrelevant. — Gunter v. State, 111 Ala. 23, 20 South. 632, 56 Am. St. Rep. 17. Besides, we think the evidence called for by the question was relevant. That the question was leading furnishes no ground for putting the trial court in error in overruling the objection.

There was sufficient evidence upon which to submit the question of defendant’s guilt to the jury; and hence charges 1, 2, and 3, requested by the defendant, were properly refused. The defendant was convicted of an assault and battery. Malice is not an ingredient of this offense, and hence the refusal of charge 4 worked no injury to the defendant. The same may be said as to charge 5. Charge 6, as set out in the record, uses the word “defendant” where doubtless the name of the assaulted party was intended, which made the charge bad, if otherwise good, and justified the court in its refusal.

There was no error in the court’s imposing six months’ additional hard labor to' the fine imposed by the jury.— Brown v. State, 141 Ala. 80, 37 South. 408; Code 1896, §§ 4343, 5415.

Affirmed.

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

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

DOWDELL, J.

The defendant was indicted for an assault with intent to murder, and was convicted of an assault and battery.

The objection to the question asked the witness Crittenden was properly overruled. The objection was general, and the evidence called for was not patently irrelevant. — Gunter v. State, 111 Ala. 23, 20 South. 632, 56 Am. St. Rep. 17. Besides, we think the evidence called for by the question was relevant. That the question was leading furnishes no ground for putting the trial court in error in overruling the objection.

There was sufficient evidence upon which to submit the question of defendant’s guilt to the jury; and hence charges 1, 2, and 3, requested by the defendant, were properly refused. The defendant was convicted of an assault and battery. Malice is not an ingredient of this offense, and hence the refusal of charge 4 worked no injury to the defendant. The same may be said as to charge 5. Charge 6, as set out in the record, uses the word “defendant” where doubtless the name of the assaulted party was intended, which made the charge bad, if otherwise good, and justified the court in its refusal.

There was no error in the court’s imposing six months’ additional hard labor to' the fine imposed by the jury.— Brown v. State, 141 Ala. 80, 37 South. 408; Code 1896, §§ 4343, 5415.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 So. 656, 154 Ala. 48, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-ala-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack