disconnected instruction in Alabama

1991"An instruction explanatory of another charge should be considered in connection therewith; and if, when considered together, they assert a correct proposition, the judgment will not be reversed, though the explanatory charge, as a separate and disconnected instruction, may not express all the elements of the proposition." Johnson v. State, 81 Ala. 54, 55 , 1 So. 573 , 574 (1886).

1991Since the court had, immediately preceding the manslaughter instruction, explained recklessness, the omission of the definition, "when read with the surrounding remarks by the court, was not prejudicial and did not warrant a reversal." Morrison v. State , 398 So.2d 730 , 746 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), reversed on other grounds, 398 So.2d 751 (Ala. 1981). " 'An instruction explanatory of another charge should be considered in connection therewith; and if, when considered together, they assert a correct proposition, the judgment will not be reversed, though the explanatory charge, as a separate and dis

1991Since the court had, immediately preceding the manslaughter instruction, explained recklessness, the omission of the definition, "when read with the surrounding remarks by the court, was not prejudicial and did not warrant a reversal." Morrison v. State , 398 So.2d 730 , 746 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), reversed on other grounds, 398 So.2d 751 (Ala. 1981). " 'An instruction explanatory of another charge should be considered in connection therewith; and if, when considered together, they assert a correct proposition, the judgment will not be reversed, though the explanatory charge, as a separate and dis

1991Since the court had, immediately preceding the manslaughter instruction, explained recklessness, the omission of the definition, "when read with the surrounding remarks by the court, was not prejudicial and did not warrant a reversal." Morrison v. State , 398 So.2d 730 , 746 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), reversed on other grounds, 398 So.2d 751 (Ala. 1981). " 'An instruction explanatory of another charge should be considered in connection therewith; and if, when considered together, they assert a correct proposition, the judgment will not be reversed, though the explanatory charge, as a separate and dis

1991They mean the same thing." This court has consistently held that a trial court's oral charge to the jury must be viewed in its entirety and not in "bits and pieces." Parks v. State , 565 So.2d 1265 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); Williams v. State , 538 So.2d 1250 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988); Lambeth v. State , 380 So.2d 923 (Ala.), on remand, 380 So.2d 925 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), writ denied, 380 So.2d 926 (Ala. 1980). " 'An instruction explanatory of another charge should be considered in connection therewith; and if, when considered together, they assert a correct proposition, the judgment will not be reversed, thr

1991They mean the same thing." This court has consistently held that a trial court's oral charge to the jury must be viewed in its entirety and not in "bits and pieces." Parks v. State , 565 So.2d 1265 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); Williams v. State , 538 So.2d 1250 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988); Lambeth v. State , 380 So.2d 923 (Ala.), on remand, 380 So.2d 925 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), writ denied, 380 So.2d 926 (Ala. 1980). " 'An instruction explanatory of another charge should be considered in connection therewith; and if, when considered together, they assert a correct proposition, the judgment will not be reversed, thr

1991They mean the same thing." This court has consistently held that a trial court's oral charge to the jury must be viewed in its entirety and not in "bits and pieces." Parks v. State , 565 So.2d 1265 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); Williams v. State , 538 So.2d 1250 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988); Lambeth v. State , 380 So.2d 923 (Ala.), on remand, 380 So.2d 925 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), writ denied, 380 So.2d 926 (Ala. 1980). " 'An instruction explanatory of another charge should be considered in connection therewith; and if, when considered together, they assert a correct proposition, the judgment will not be reversed, thr

1991They mean the same thing." This court has consistently held that a trial court's oral charge to the jury must be viewed in its entirety and not in "bits and pieces." Parks v. State , 565 So.2d 1265 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); Williams v. State , 538 So.2d 1250 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988); Lambeth v. State , 380 So.2d 923 (Ala.), on remand, 380 So.2d 925 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), writ denied, 380 So.2d 926 (Ala. 1980). " 'An instruction explanatory of another charge should be considered in connection therewith; and if, when considered together, they assert a correct proposition, the judgment will not be reversed, thr

1988“The entire oral charge of the court ... must be looked to and construed ... in connection with the evidence, and, if the charge considered as a whole correctly states the rules of law applicable to the evidence in the case, it will not be deemed reversible error if some of the portions considered as standing along are incorrect.” Jackson v. State, 2 Ala.App. 55, 58 , 56 So. 96, 97 (1911). “[T]he general charge should be considered as a whole, and construed in connection with the uncontradicted evidence in the particular case, and if, so considered and construed, it asserts the law correctly,

1886The instruction goes as far as the defendant had a right to ask.— O'Donnell v. Rodiger, 76 Ala. 222 .