Veasey v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Veasey v. State

103 So. 67, 20 Ala. App. 478, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 30

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 1925

Docket4 Div. 977.

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 103 So. 67 (Veasey 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

Veasey v. State, 103 So. 67, 20 Ala. App. 478, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 30 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

Charge 2 refused to defendant is as follows:

“The court charges the jury, if the jury, upon considering all the evidence, have a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt, arising out of any part of the evidence, they should find him not guüty.”

This charge was not covered by the oral charge, nor by the given charges. It stated a correct proposition of law, and should have been given. For its refusal there is no escape from reversing the judgment of conviction appealed from. This identical charge has been approved many times by the Supreme Court, and by this court. See Townsend v. State, 18 Ala. App. 242, 90 So. 58, and the numerous cases there cited. See, also, Hurd v. State, 94 Ala. 100, 10 So. 528; *479 Forney v. State, 98 Ala. 19, 13 So. 540; Prince v. State, 100 Ala. 144, 14 So. 409, 46 Am. St. Rep. 28; Walker v. State, 117 Ala. 42, 23 So. 149; Bardin v. State, 143 Ala. 74, 38 So. 833; Welch v. State, 156 Ala. 112, 46 So. 856; Davidson v. State, 167 Ala. 68, 52 So. 751, 140 Am. St. Rep. 17; Campbell v. State, 182 Ala. 18, 62 So. 57; Roberson v. State, 183 Ala. 43, 62 So. 837; Black v. State, 1 Ala. App. 169, 55 So. 948; Campbell v. State, 13 Ala. App. 70, 69 So. 322.

It was also error to refuse written charge 3, requested by defendant. This identical charge has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Brown v. State, 118 Ala. 111, 23 So. 81. In the instant case no evidence of an incriminatory nature was adduced by the defendant. The conviction .of this man of necessity rested solely upon the evidence of the state, and under this status, charge 3 above referred to, and also refused charge 7 should have been given, and the refusal of each of these charges constituted reversible error. Davis v. State, 8 Ala. App. 147, 62 So. 1027; Johnson v. State, 133 Ala. 38, 31 So. 951.

Several other insistencies of error are presented, but as the judgment must be reversed for the refusal of the charges hereinabove discussed, there is no necessity to treat these questions, there being no new or novel proposition involved.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment of the lower court from which this appeal was taken 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

BRICKEN, P. J.

Charge 2 refused to defendant is as follows:

“The court charges the jury, if the jury, upon considering all the evidence, have a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt, arising out of any part of the evidence, they should find him not guüty.”

This charge was not covered by the oral charge, nor by the given charges. It stated a correct proposition of law, and should have been given. For its refusal there is no escape from reversing the judgment of conviction appealed from. This identical charge has been approved many times by the Supreme Court, and by this court. See Townsend v. State, 18 Ala. App. 242, 90 So. 58, and the numerous cases there cited. See, also, Hurd v. State, 94 Ala. 100, 10 So. 528; *479 Forney v. State, 98 Ala. 19, 13 So. 540; Prince v. State, 100 Ala. 144, 14 So. 409, 46 Am. St. Rep. 28; Walker v. State, 117 Ala. 42, 23 So. 149; Bardin v. State, 143 Ala. 74, 38 So. 833; Welch v. State, 156 Ala. 112, 46 So. 856; Davidson v. State, 167 Ala. 68, 52 So. 751, 140 Am. St. Rep. 17; Campbell v. State, 182 Ala. 18, 62 So. 57; Roberson v. State, 183 Ala. 43, 62 So. 837; Black v. State, 1 Ala. App. 169, 55 So. 948; Campbell v. State, 13 Ala. App. 70, 69 So. 322.

It was also error to refuse written charge 3, requested by defendant. This identical charge has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Brown v. State, 118 Ala. 111, 23 So. 81. In the instant case no evidence of an incriminatory nature was adduced by the defendant. The conviction .of this man of necessity rested solely upon the evidence of the state, and under this status, charge 3 above referred to, and also refused charge 7 should have been given, and the refusal of each of these charges constituted reversible error. Davis v. State, 8 Ala. App. 147, 62 So. 1027; Johnson v. State, 133 Ala. 38, 31 So. 951.

Several other insistencies of error are presented, but as the judgment must be reversed for the refusal of the charges hereinabove discussed, there is no necessity to treat these questions, there being no new or novel proposition involved.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment of the lower court from which this appeal was taken is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 So. 67, 20 Ala. App. 478, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veasey-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack