From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moody v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Jun 30, 1925
104 So. 875 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)

Opinion

8 Div. 329.

June 30, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; Charles P. Almon, Judge.

Houston Moody was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.

These charges, requested by defendant, were refused:

"(2) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if, after a consideration of all the evidence there is one single fact proved to your satisfaction which is inconsistent with defendant's guilt, this is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of his guilt, and you should find him not guilty.

"(3) The court charges the jury that the defendant in this case is charged with a felony, and that he should not be convicted, unless the evidence excludes, to a moral certainty, every reasonable hypothesis but of the defendant's guilt; no matter how strong the circumstances are, they do not come up to the full measure of proof which the law requires, if they can be reasonably reconciled with the theory that the defendant.

"(4) I charge you that, no matter how strong may be the facts, if they can be reconciled with the theory that some other person may have done the act, then the guilt of the defendant is not shown by the full measure of proof which the law required."

Bradshaw Barnett, of Florence, for appellant.

Counsel argue for error in refusal of charges, and cite Simmons v. State, 158 Ala. 8, 48 So. 606; Walker v. State, 153 Ala. 31, 45 So. 640; Hobdy v. State, 20 Ala. App. 44, 100 So. 571; McKenzie v. State, 19 Ala. App. 319, 97 So. 155; Pickens v. State, 115 Ala. 42, 22 So. 551; Ex parte Acree, 63 Ala. 234.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

There was no error in refusing defendant's requested charges. Anderson v. State, 19 Ala. App. 120, 96 So. 634; Ex parte Hill, 211 Ala. 311, 100 So. 315.


The defendant was convicted of the offense of distilling, etc., and appeals.

It would serve no good purpose to discuss the evidence. We have carefully examined same, and are of the opinion that it was sufficient to support the verdict returned. There was therefore no error in refusing to give, at defendant's request, the general affirmative charge in his favor, as to the indictment as a whole, or either count thereof.

Written charge 2, requested by defendant, was properly refused. Arnold v. State, 18 Ala. App. 453, 93 So. 83.

Written charge 3, requested by defendant, is incomplete and meaningless, and its refusal was proper.

Defendant's written charge 4 was properly refused, for the reason that the guilt of another did not exclude the possibility of the defendant himself being also guilty. Ex parte Hill, 211 Ala. 311, 100 So. 315.

The other exceptions reserved by defendant have each been examined, and in each instance we find same without merit.

There being no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Moody v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Jun 30, 1925
104 So. 875 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)
Case details for

Moody v. State

Case Details

Full title:MOODY v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Jun 30, 1925

Citations

104 So. 875 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)
104 So. 875

Citing Cases

Cauley v. State

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. Charge 2 is bad. Moody v.…

NIX v. STATE

The charges are clearly misleading and invasive of the province of the jury. Wilson v. State, supra; Daniels…