Riddle v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Riddle v. State

49 Ala. 389

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 15, 1873

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 Ala. 389 (Riddle 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

Riddle v. State, 49 Ala. 389 (Ala. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

— Tbe indictment was for assault and battery. It does not appear from tbe bill of exceptions, wbicb professes to set out all- of tbe evidence, that tbe offence was proved to have been committed in Barbour County. Section 4114 of tbe Revised Code enacts-“ It is- not necessary to allege where tbe offence was committed; but it must be proved on tbe trial to- have been committed within tbe jurisdiction of tbe county in wbicb tbe indictment is preferred.” We cannot * gainsay the recitals- of tbe bill of exceptions, and a conviction on testimony less than sufficient to make out the case against tbe accused is* necessarily erroneous. Brick. Dig. p. 514.

2. Tbe remark of tbe accused to tbe person beaten, “ If I bad known you were a> one-legged man, I would not have struck you,” made as soon as- tbe Mow was given, was a part of tbe res gestee, and admissible evidence, tending to affect tbe punishment to be imposed.

3. It is difficult to- say what tbe law is in this State respecting the1 justification of an assault and battery. Rev. Code, § 4198, makes opprobrious words or abusive language a justification, as the1 jury may determine. But if the person to whom such language is- addressed cannot beat tbe other, it goes for nothing. Merely being struck first is not a justification, for then- we could' not have a case of affray. Generally, the facts- convey a correct impression to tbe jury of tbe degree of - blame to be attached to tbe offender.

Tbe judgment is reversed, and tbe cause remanded.

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

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

— Tbe indictment was for assault and battery. It does not appear from tbe bill of exceptions, wbicb professes to set out all- of tbe evidence, that tbe offence was proved to have been committed in Barbour County. Section 4114 of tbe Revised Code enacts-“ It is- not necessary to allege where tbe offence was committed; but it must be proved on tbe trial to- have been committed within tbe jurisdiction of tbe county in wbicb tbe indictment is preferred.” We cannot * gainsay the recitals- of tbe bill of exceptions, and a conviction on testimony less than sufficient to make out the case against tbe accused is* necessarily erroneous. Brick. Dig. p. 514.

2. Tbe remark of tbe accused to tbe person beaten, “ If I bad known you were a> one-legged man, I would not have struck you,” made as soon as- tbe Mow was given, was a part of tbe res gestee, and admissible evidence, tending to affect tbe punishment to be imposed.

3. It is difficult to- say what tbe law is in this State respecting the1 justification of an assault and battery. Rev. Code, § 4198, makes opprobrious words or abusive language a justification, as the1 jury may determine. But if the person to whom such language is- addressed cannot beat tbe other, it goes for nothing. Merely being struck first is not a justification, for then- we could' not have a case of affray. Generally, the facts- convey a correct impression to tbe jury of tbe degree of - blame to be attached to tbe offender.

Tbe judgment is reversed, and tbe cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Ala. 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riddle-v-state-ala-1873.

Opinion

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack