Morell v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Morell v. State

86 So. 160, 17 Ala. App. 554, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 185

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1920

Docket8 Div. 702.

StatusPublished

This text of 86 So. 160 (Morell 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

Morell v. State, 86 So. 160, 17 Ala. App. 554, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 185 (Ala. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The propositions of law presented for review, and necessary on this appeal to deal with, may be illustrated by the following written charge, given at 'the request of the state:

• “I charge that if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the assault in this case, if one was committed, was in a sudden rencounter or affray, and caused by the defendants by the use of deadly weapons, which were concealed before the commencement of the fight, Badge Whitt, their adversary, having no deadly weapon drawn, then the defendants would be guilty of an assault with intent to murder.”

The court in its rulings and in its oral charge followed the principle embodied in tire charge above quoted. This charge was held to be good in Scoggins v. State, 120 Ala. 369, 25 South. 180. The court in that case assumed that such .ruling was but carrying into effect section 7086 of the Code of 1907, when, as a matter of fact, the statute is only applicable to homicide cases. This was later recognized by the Supreme Court and the holding in the Scoggins Case on this point was expressly overruled. Ray v. State, 147 Ala. 5, 41 South. 519. We see no good reason for passing upon the other exceptions *555 raised by the record, but for the error pointed out the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMFORD, J.

The propositions of law presented for review, and necessary on this appeal to deal with, may be illustrated by the following written charge, given at 'the request of the state:

• “I charge that if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the assault in this case, if one was committed, was in a sudden rencounter or affray, and caused by the defendants by the use of deadly weapons, which were concealed before the commencement of the fight, Badge Whitt, their adversary, having no deadly weapon drawn, then the defendants would be guilty of an assault with intent to murder.”

The court in its rulings and in its oral charge followed the principle embodied in tire charge above quoted. This charge was held to be good in Scoggins v. State, 120 Ala. 369, 25 South. 180. The court in that case assumed that such .ruling was but carrying into effect section 7086 of the Code of 1907, when, as a matter of fact, the statute is only applicable to homicide cases. This was later recognized by the Supreme Court and the holding in the Scoggins Case on this point was expressly overruled. Ray v. State, 147 Ala. 5, 41 South. 519. We see no good reason for passing upon the other exceptions *555 raised by the record, but for the error pointed out the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 So. 160, 17 Ala. App. 554, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morell-v-state-alactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack