*1 MORGAN v. STATE (20 contract vires, <&wkey;338— it does sued on -ultra was plea Testimony 8.Witnesses defend- appear why having Tuskegee the courts ant’s witness as attended to prejudicial. jurisdiction Institute held not deter- would not have to state mine case. in this Testimony by defendant’s witness cross- sustaining the de- There was error having to as plea, ap- Institute, murrer to the prejudicial held to objectionable pealed question eliciting tending from affirmed. it not as to arouse race 413(I)— <&wkey;364(3), Criminal law 9. Defend- voluntarily ant’s to statement as 236) (102So. up gestee. self-serving after held res 967.) Div. MORGAN STATE. (Court Appeals Aug. 19, of Alabama. Defendant,’s statement Rehearing 1924.) Oct. Denied give up” prop- “I went on ceased down and held erly gestse as self- excluded <&wkey;759(l)Charge to'adopt 1. Criminal law — serving. built, conclusion of rather equally prop- deducible held — may <&wkey;4l3(l) 10. Criminal law Defendant erly refused. not make evidence after commit- himself for weight effect of evidence ting act. is' such that two drawn conclusions it, guilt, may of innocence other of him- Defendant evidence for not make properly former, held charged. committing after act self jury’s province. invading as 183(2) 11. Homicide deceas- <©=< —Evidence <&wkey;74l(l) Sufficiency law Criminal of evi- — dangerous bloodthirsty as ed’s character jury. dence and of fact conclusions held admissible. Sufficiency conclusions of Evidence of character dan- fact are for deceased’s gerous bloodthirsty man held relevant to illus- <&wkey;829(l8) 3. Criminal law attending homicide, trate qualify —Refused adoption as to of innocence rath- explain of conclusion deceased’s threats given. guilt by charges er than held covered charge that, Refused if conclusion of ei- guilt ther innocence or could be drawn from <&wkey;4l9,420(1) 12. Criminal law defend- —That evidence, jury adopt former, held cov- difficulty ant had heard that by charges convict, ered must find held inadmissible. with others guilt from evidence reasonable doubt. That defendant had that deceased had heard difficulty parties, held <©=789(15) and in- 4. Criminal other jaw —Refused unless evidence excludes rea- admissible. supposition guilt, sonable held bad. Refused unless evidence Criminal law tes- —Defendant’s supposition except fright timony excludes deceased’s action' held held bad. excluded. that when deceased Defendant’s statement <&wkey;8(5(9)Charge prop- held pocket, -“I his hand in was scared started erly pretermitting refused as consideration self-serving. him,” excluded all single fact, jury’s <@=>1169(5) satisfaction, ad- Criminal inconsistent —Erroneous require bad acquit- evidence as to to raise tal, mission of change ruling. pretermitting character cured sideration of all evidence. any, Error, in admission of bad fel- that low <&wkey;789(l2) change court’s held juror unless each explicit as to such instruction guilt highest impor- cision of in matters fact. himself, tance to bad. 'to unless so convinc- <&wkey;956(13) Slip Criminal juror ed would act on such found in room insufficient to im- decision matters of concern and im'- quotient. peach verdict as portance his own held bad. Slip paper, found in room after ver- <&wkey;829(I) charg- Criminal dict, containing divided dict, especially dence figures —Refusal column added substantially es impeach insufficient to ver- charges not error. overwhelming in view of evi- substantially Refusal of on motion trial that no such new average agreement written court’s made error. into verdict. enter Key-Numbered
«gcaFor
other cases see same
*2
APPELLATE
REPORTS
ALABAMA
charges
person
jury
“E. The
the
charged with murder
not
be convicted
'
<&wkey;81.4(17)Charge
cir-
unless the evidence excludes
ato moral certain-
cumstantial
evidence
ty every
hypothesis
that
reasonable
but
of his
guilt;
strong
no matter how
the
they
circumstances,
strong,
,are
not
do
come
to the full measure
that
however
requires
they
proof
of
which the
if
can be
are
of
insufficient to authorize conviction mur-
theory
reasonably
theory
der,
reasonably
reconciled with the
that the
of
reconcilable with
-
argu-
is innocent.”
refused as mere
jury
ment,
“4. The
'must find
in
the
not
of direct
of homicide.
view
evidence
guilty
if the conduct of the
hypothesis
charge reasonable
consistent with
in-
his
'
nocence.”
all evidence.
bad as not
your duty
“S. It is
the defendant
jury
that
must
unless the evidence excludes
reasonable
hypothesis
fendant’s conduct on reasonable
is supposition
guilt.
but
of his
that
innocence, bad as
his
consistent with'
charges
jury
“9. The court
the
if there
predicated on all evidence.
single
fact
to the satisfaction
the
jury
George
inconsistent with
Mor-
&wkey;>76l
(6) -Charge on self-
18. Criminal gan’s guilt,
ble
is sufficient
to raise
reasona-
assuming
defense
jury
acquit.”
and the
man.
reasonable
that defendant was
jury
“12. Before
can
the
convict the defend-
were such
if circumstances
that
certainty
they must be
a moral
ant
not
satisfied to
impress
belief that
defendant with
proof
only
that
the
guilt,
is consistent with
necessary
prevent
or
fire
death
it was
wholly
the
in-
defendant’s
but that it is
acquit,
bodily harm, jury
great
unless de-
must
conclusion,
consistent
rational
bringing
in
from fault
fendant was
difficulty,
free
jury
so
the
are
convinced
the evi-
unless
assuming, as
properly refused as
they
that
dence
the defendant’s
defendant was
that
matter of
in
that decision mat-
venture to act
man.
importance to
ters of the
concern and
they
his
must
the defendant
own
find
guilty.”
Talladega
Appeal
Circuit
charges
jury
“19. The court
that it
the
Judge.
Agee,
County; A. P.
necessary
danger
that
there should be actual
great bodily
jus-
of
tify
are satisfied
or
in
death
harm order to
Morgan
George
of man-
was convicted
taking
jury
life,
the
human
but
the
appeals.
degree,
slaughter
in
first
all the
in
case
evidence
the
firing
that the circumstances
Court
denied
Certiorari
impress
the fatal shot
Morgan,
such as to
212 Ala.
with a reasonable belief
firing
that at the
sary
was neces-
the shot it-
time
charged
the defendant
indictment
bodily
great
prevent
in order
death or
killing
degree
of one
murder
first
Oscar
curred
they
person,
harm to
must
then
appears
oc-
Elton.
It
they
defendant, unless
further believe from the
there
store
in defendant’s
defendant was
free from
eyewitnesses
De-
to the occurrence.
were no
fendant
difficulty.”
bringing
fault in
on the
deny shooting
did not
Talladega,
Sims,
Acker,
Knox,
Dixon &
sought
of self-defense.
his, claim
to establish
(a
Morgan
appellant.
Mary Ruth
Defendant’s witness
defendant) having testified on cross-
niece
refusing
There
only
that she
had
charges. Charge
requested
4: Du Bose v.
defendant a week when
home of
App.
State, Ala.
99 So.
school,
occurred,
had been off to
that she
y.
59 So.
19: Black
go
neigh-
she
school
did
App. 570,
Kirkley
692;
Ala.
v.
borhood,
far
the' solicitor “how
was asked
56; Twitty
Stajte,
get away
you
home?” and
answered
did
“I
ant
quotient
Led-
one.
verdict was
309. The
Tuskegee Institute.” The defend-
581;
better
objected
testimony.”
“to
Corp.
Abercrombie,
Agri.
International
objection,
ex-
overruled the
and defendant
S.)
(N.
A.
49 L. R.
cepted.
following
were refused to
Atty. Gen.,
Davis,
for the State.
fendant:
Harwell G.
Re-
Brief of counsel
not reach the
jury,
gentlemen
you,
“A. I
porter.
comparison
that if after
full
you
the case
decide
all
weight
be such as that two
effect to
its
SAMEORD,
A
refused to
J.
favoring,
it, one
drawn from
clusions
province
is invasive
tending to
innocence and the other
weight, sufficiency
jury,
the
and
charges
demands
of Alabama
establish
conclusions,
jury,
fact
for the
jury
former and
shall
that the
charge A
covered
defendant.”
Key-Numbered
ig^For
see same
oases
qualify,explain,
.from the
able
n (cid:127)of
..explicit manner.
.statement
Charge E is
n oral
of defendant’s
*3
given
in the
tially
thirsty
charges given
so
Du
the 160,