History
  • No items yet
midpage
Duke v. State
1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 31
| Ala. Ct. App. | 1929
|
Check Treatment

The state's case depended upon the testimony of one Sam Duke, and without this testimony the defendant would have been entitled to the general charge. On the trial the defendant requested this charge: "If the guilt of the defendant depends upon the testimony of the State witness, Sam Duke; and you have a reasonable doubt of the truthfulness of this witness's testimony, then you should find the defendant not guilty." In this case this was a good charge and should have been given. In Baxley v. State, 18 Ala. App. 277-279, 90 So. 434, it was pointed out when this charge should be given and when not. Ex parte Baxley, 206 Ala. 698, 90 So. 925.

For the error in refusing the above charge, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Case Details

Case Name: Duke v. State
Court Name: Alabama Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jan 22, 1929
Citation: 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 31
Docket Number: 6 Div. 379.
Court Abbreviation: Ala. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.