Opinion
4 Div. 63.
January 12, 1926. Rehearing Denied February 16, 1926.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J. S. Williams, Judge.
Louie Bloodsworth was convicted of disturbing public worship, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The following requested charges were refused to defendant:
"The court charges the jury that if they believe from the evidence if the defendant created a loud noise disturbing religious worship, and if the jury further believe from the evidence that this disturbance was done carelessly or recklessly, and not maliciously, you cannot convict defendant.
"The court charges the jury that before they can convict defendant they must believe from the evidence that the defendant maliciously disturbed the religious worship."
"If you believe that others were talking in the church, you may consider that fact in your deliberation, and if the talk of others causes you to doubt the guilt of defendant you may acquit defendant, provided you base your finding upon all the evidence.
"Before you may convict defendant, must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that act done, or words uttered, were willfully done or uttered."
One ground of defendant's motion for a new trial was that the costs taxed in the case are unreasonable.
Sollie Sollie, of Ozark, for appellant.
The affirmative charge, and other charges requested for defendant, should have been given. Code 1923, § 3881; White v. Easters, 38 Ala. 154; Brown v. State, 46 Ala. 175; Lancaster v. State, 53 Ala. 398, 25 Am. Rep. 625. Counsel also argue that the judgment should be reversed for unreasonableness of costs taxed against defendant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Robert G. Tate, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant's requested charges were properly refused. Salter v. State, 13 So. 535, 99 Ala. 209; Ellis v. State, 65 So. 412, 10 Ala. App. 252. The amount of costs will not be considered, in deciding whether or not error was committed.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of "interrupting or disturbing an assemblage of people met for religious worship" under the provisions of section 3881 of the Code of 1923.
The meeting was of those known as the "Assemblers of God," otherwise referred to as a "Holiness Meeting." There was much testimony offered on behalf of appellant to the effect that neither the conduct charged to him in the state's evidence, nor any other conduct, could have, in fact, disturbed the meeting in question, because of its inherently boisterous nature. However, the evidence on the part of the state was to the effect that appellant by talking and otherwise did really disturb the meeting. The issue as to his guilt vel non was, we think, properly submitted to the jury.
Appellant requested in writing a number of charges, which were refused, but which appear in the transcript without number or other distinguishing mark of identification. We have examined each of these, and are of the opinion that there was no error in refusing any of them under the authority of Stafford v. State, 45 So. 673, 154 Ala. 71; Salter v. State, 13 So. 535, 99 Ala. 207, and other cases that might be cited.
No question is here presented as to the excessiveness vel non of the court costs taxed against appellant.
We find no prejudicial error, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.