Charges moved for by either party must be in writing and must be given or refused in the terms in which they are written, and it is the duty of the judge to write “given” or “refused,” as the case may be, on the document and sign his name thereto, which thereby becomes a part of the record. Charges which are marked “given” by the trial judge must be taken by the jury with them on retirement, and those “refused” must be retained by the clerk. The court shall, after the conclusion of his charge to the jury, read such written charges as he has given for the parties in a clear and audible voice, saying to the jury, “these are instructions given you by the court at the request of the plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, and are correct statements of the law to be taken by you in connection with what has already been said to you.” The refusal of a charge, though a correct statement of the law, shall not be cause for a reversal on appeal if it appears that the same rule of law was substantially and fairly given to the jury in the court’s general charge or in charges given at the request of parties. In case of appeal, the charges must be set out in the record on appeal in the following manner:
(1) The charge of the court;
(2) The charges given at the request of the plaintiff or the state;
(3) The charges given at the request of the defendant; and
(4) The charges refused to the appellant.
Every general charge shall be in writing or be taken down by the court reporter as it is delivered to the jury.
(Code 1852, §2355; Code 1867, §2756; Code 1876, §3109; Code 1886, §2756; Code 1896, §3328; Code 1907, §5364; Acts 1915, No. 716, p. 815; Code 1923, §9509; Code 1940, T. 7, §273.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
62
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case:
Ex Parte Allen, 414 So. 2d 993 (Ala. 1982).
Ex Parte Allen, 414 So. 2d 993 (Ala. 1982).
· cites it 5× “The "automatic exception" statute, nevertheless, still applied in criminal cases, but when the legislature, in its wisdom, adopted Code 1975, § 12-16-13, it dropped the automatic exception provision.”
Gaddy v. State, 698 So. 2d 1100 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “, effective January 1, 1991, superseded the portion of § 12-16-13, Code of Alabama 1975, cited by the appellant, which states: "Charges which are marked `given' by the trial court judge must be taken by the jury with them on retirement.”
Ex Parte Wilhite, 485 So. 2d 787 (Ala. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Alabama Code (1975), § 12-16-13. Therefore, a requested jury charge is properly refused if it contains misspelled or misused words which would tend to confuse the jury or if it is not predicated upon the evidence.”
Doster v. State, 72 So. 3d 50 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).
“Section 12-16-13, Ala.Code 1975, which was in effect until Rule 14, Ala.”
Edwards v. State, 452 So. 2d 487 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “1981); Ala.Code § 12-16-13 (1975). Charges 11 and 13 were not properly predicated upon the evidence and were therefore, correctly refused.”
Demetrius Avery Jackson, Jr. v. State of Alabama., 169 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).
“Code 1975, § 12-16-13. “The trial court in its oral instructions to the jury discussed the reasonable doubt standard as applied to the evidence in its totality and substantially and fairly covered that standard.”
Snider v. State, 406 So. 2d 1008 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981).
“We have reviewed the court's oral instruction and find it adequately covers the law of complicity as it relates to the immediate offense. See Section 13A-2-23, Code of Alabama 1975, and Black's Law Dictionary, "Aid and Abet," p.”
Cardwell v. State, 544 So. 2d 987 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Ala.Code § 12-16-13 (1975). No error is shown.”
Ex Parte Curry, 471 So. 2d 476 (Ala. 1984).
“1983); § 12-16-13, Alabama Code (1975). Finally, Curry argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that their deliberations required reaching a unanimous verdict in order to convict or acquit the defendant.”
Norsworthy v. State, 542 So. 2d 950 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Ala.Code § 12-16-13, 1975. After a careful review of the refused charges and the court's oral charge concerning mental disease or defect, we find that the four refused charges were substantially and fairly covered in the trial court's oral charge or were incorrect statements of…”
Morrison v. State, 398 So. 2d 730 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979).
“2d 221 ; § 12-16-13, Code of Alabama, 1975. From the record, the court's instruction appears, as follows: "I think this case really comes down to this, Lady and Gentlemen, and I want to put it to you in two different questions.”
Hill v. State, 507 So. 2d 554 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986).
“§ 12-16-13, Code of Alabama 1975; McDaniel v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.