Burrough v. State, 135 So. 651 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931). · Go Syfert
Search
Burrough v. State, 135 So. 651 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Burrough
v.
State.
Alabama Court of Appeals.
May 5, 1931.
135 So. 651
1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 26
J. L. Stephenson, of Parrish, for appellant. Defendant's requested charges correctly state the law, and their refusal was error. (5) Moody v. State, 23 Ala. App. 431 , 126 So. 495 ; Anderson v. State, 20 Ala. App. 154 , 101 So. 162 ; (11, 12) Lock v. State, 21 Ala. App. 81 , 105 So. 431 ; Gann v. State, 21 Ala. App. 347 , 108 So. 269 ; Stanfield v. State, 23 Ala. App. 60 , 120 So. 467 ; Haithcock v. State, 23 Ala. App. 460 , 126 So. 890 ; (7) Barker v. State, 20 Ala. App. 564 , 103 So. 914 ; Underwood v. State, ante, p. 191, 132 So. 606 ; (6) Daugherty v. State, 22 Ala. App. 400 , 116 So. 308 ; Sharp v. State, 22 Ala. App. 562 , 118 So. 238 . Thomas E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Thos. S. Lawson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. Charge 5 is misleading, is argumentative, and improperly worded. Bell v. State, 2 Ala. App. 150 , 56 So. 842 ; Steele v. State, 159 Ala. 9 , 48 So. 673 ; Bettis v. State, 160 Ala. 4 , 49 So. 781 . Moody v. State, 23 Ala. App. 431 , 126 So. 495 , 496 , is not in point. Charge 6 does not state a correct principle of law. Code 1923, § 4650; Nix v. Andalusia, 21 Ala. App. 439 , 109 So. 182 . Charge 7 is incorrectly worded. At any rate it and charges 11 and 12 were covered by the oral charge.
Bice.
BICE, J.

Upon the original submission of this cause, after a careful study of the entire record, including the bill of exceptions, we were of the opinion that the questions apparent were so obviously without merit, as to render it unnecessary for us to write an opinion. We are still of that mind.

However, out of deference to the insistence of appellant’s counsel, we will here state our reasons for adhering; to the views we hold, with reference to those questions argued by him, for error, in his brief filed on this application for rehearing.

Appellant’s written, requested, and refused charge 5 was confusing, misleading, involved, and argumentative. It was properly refused, as written charges, subject to the defects mentioned, always are.

The substance of appellant’s written, requested, and refused charges 11 and 12 was given to the jury in the trial court’s oral charge. Hence, it was proper to refuse each of them. ' Code 1923, § 9509.

Appellant’s written, requested, and refused charge 7 is inaptly worded, and confusing. Furthermore, the substance of same was given to the jury in the trial court’s oral charge. It was properly refused.

Written, requested, and refused charge 6 does not state a correct principle of law. Code 1923, § 4650. It was refused without error.

The application for rehearing is overruled.