Smith v. State

75 So. 829, 16 Ala. App. 153, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 213

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 13 Ala. App. 411 →

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided May 29, 1917·No. 3 Div. 257.·Published

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1] Charges 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, A2, and A3 are all objectionable for the reason, among others, that they omit freedom from fault in bringing on the difficulty.

[2] Charge 4 is bad because it fails to say of what the jury should be in doubt.

[3] Charges 8 and 9 are bad because the state might fail to prove malice and still the defendant would be guilty of •manslaughter.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

[1] Charges 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, A2, and A3 are all objectionable for the reason, among others, that they omit freedom from fault in bringing on the difficulty.

[2] Charge 4 is bad because it fails to say of what the jury should be in doubt.

[3] Charges 8 and 9 are bad because the state might fail to prove malice and still the defendant would be guilty of •manslaughter.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Smith v. State, 75 So. 829, 16 Ala. App. 153, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 213 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

75 So. 829 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.