Sorrells v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Sorrells v. State

213 So. 2d 687, 44 Ala. App. 481, 1968 Ala. App. LEXIS 501

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 27, 1968

Docket4 Div. 635

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 213 So. 2d 687 (Sorrells 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

Sorrells v. State, 213 So. 2d 687, 44 Ala. App. 481, 1968 Ala. App. LEXIS 501 (Ala. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PRICE, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder.

The defendant admitted the shooting of one Colbert R. Sorrells. The question of whether he shot in self defense was for the jury under the evidence presented. The requested general affirmative charge was refused without error.

Requested charges D-4 and D-6, solely to the effect that the burden of proof was on the state to show that defendant was not free from fault in bringing on the difficulty, were calculated to mislead the jury into believing that retreat and imminent peril were not important factors in the case, and were properly refused. Morris v. State, 146 Ala. 66, 41 So. 274.

The defendant testified as a witness in his own behalf. He did not put his character for peace and quiet in issue. After defendant had closed his evidence, the state, in rebuttal, introduced Quinn Culverhouse, Police Chief of Hartford, and L. D. Sizemore, Chief Deputy Sheriff of Geneva County, who testified they had known defendant for thirty and twenty-five years, respectively. They were asked whether they knew his general reputation in the community “for peace and quietude” prior to the shooting. Defendant’s objections to these questions were overruled. They answered that they knew such reputation. Mr. Culverhouse said it “was not too good.” Mr. Sizemore testified it was “bad.” The defendant’s motions to exclude the answers were overruled. These rulings of the court were reversible error. The general rule of evidence is stated in Bedsole v. State, 274 Ala. 603, 150 So.2d 696, as follows:

“When a defendant in a homicide case (assault with intent to murder, etc.,) has testified, the State may inquire into his general character, but only to the extent that it affects his credibility as a witness; and unless the defendant has first put his character in issue by offering testimony that it was good, it is reversible error to allow the State to inquire into his reputation for peace and quiet.” (cases cited)

For the error pointed out hereinabove the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PRICE, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder.

The defendant admitted the shooting of one Colbert R. Sorrells. The question of whether he shot in self defense was for the jury under the evidence presented. The requested general affirmative charge was refused without error.

Requested charges D-4 and D-6, solely to the effect that the burden of proof was on the state to show that defendant was not free from fault in bringing on the difficulty, were calculated to mislead the jury into believing that retreat and imminent peril were not important factors in the case, and were properly refused. Morris v. State, 146 Ala. 66, 41 So. 274.

The defendant testified as a witness in his own behalf. He did not put his character for peace and quiet in issue. After defendant had closed his evidence, the state, in rebuttal, introduced Quinn Culverhouse, Police Chief of Hartford, and L. D. Sizemore, Chief Deputy Sheriff of Geneva County, who testified they had known defendant for thirty and twenty-five years, respectively. They were asked whether they knew his general reputation in the community “for peace and quietude” prior to the shooting. Defendant’s objections to these questions were overruled. They answered that they knew such reputation. Mr. Culverhouse said it “was not too good.” Mr. Sizemore testified it was “bad.” The defendant’s motions to exclude the answers were overruled. These rulings of the court were reversible error. The general rule of evidence is stated in Bedsole v. State, 274 Ala. 603, 150 So.2d 696, as follows:

“When a defendant in a homicide case (assault with intent to murder, etc.,) has testified, the State may inquire into his general character, but only to the extent that it affects his credibility as a witness; and unless the defendant has first put his character in issue by offering testimony that it was good, it is reversible error to allow the State to inquire into his reputation for peace and quiet.” (cases cited)

For the error pointed out hereinabove the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 So. 2d 687, 44 Ala. App. 481, 1968 Ala. App. LEXIS 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sorrells-v-state-alactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack