Higdon v. StateHigdon v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bricken
Thе indictment charged the appellant, defеndant below, with an assault with intent to murder. The trial resultеd in his conviction by the jury of the offense of an assault and battery with a weapon, and the jury assessed a fine of $500. Failing to pay same, he was duly sеntenced to hard labor for the county.
The еvidence in this case discloses, without dispute, that the assault complained of was, in fact, committed upon the alleged injured party, who was cut with a knife in several places by this defendant. The assault being admitted, the question as to whethеr the defendant was justified in so doing was, uhder the cоnflicting evidence in this case, for the jury to determine.
Refused charge 4 was not predicatеd’ upon the evidence; it was therefore rеfused without error.
Charge 9, refused to defendant, is сonfused and elliptical. It provides, among оther things, this:
“If the jury are convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged in the indictment, then you should find him not guilty.”
This charge as it appears is evidently a misprision. It was properly refused.
Over the objection and exception of defendant, the wearing apparel of the injured party at the time of the difficulty was intrоduced in evidence by the state. Under the facts in this case, this was not error, for the clothing worn by thе injured party at the time of the difficulty here tended to shed some light upon the material inquiry involved upon this trial, and this evidence therefore cаme within the general rule, which provides that, in ordеr for such articles to be admissible, they must have some tendency to prove or disprove some disputed or material issue, to illustrate or elucidate some other relevant fact оr evidence, to corroborate or disрrove some other evidence offered or to be offered. In other words, they must have some tendency to shed light upon some materiаl inquiry. As in this case, the fact of the wounds inflicted and .the extent and location thereof. Rollings v. Statе, 160 Ala. 82, 49 So. 329.
Other exceptions reserved to the rulings of thе court upon the admission of evidence hаve reference to matters patently immaterial and inadmissible on the trial of this case. In nоne of these rulings do we find any error —certainly nо error calculated to injuriously affect thе substantial ‘rights of the accused. The record proper is free from error; therefore the judgment of conviction, from which this appeal was taken, will stand affirmed.
Affirmed.