Case ID: ala-app_17/html/0345-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMFORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(84 South. 870)
    BIGHAM v. STATE.
    (4 Div. 604.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Feb. 3, 1920.)
    Animals <§=>45 — Affirmative Charge Proper where Undisputed Evidence Shows Offense Subsequent to Indictment.
    Where the undisputed evidence showed that the mule defendant was charged with killing was killed six months after the indictment was filed, and there was nothing in the record to show a mistake as to the date, the affirmative charge for defendant should have been given.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J. S. Williams, Judge.
    James Bigham was convicted for unlawfully killing a mule, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    McDowell & McDowell, of Eufaula, for appellant.
    J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   SAMFORD, J.

The record shows the indictment upon which the trial was had to have been returned by the grand jury at the spring term of the circuit court for Barbour county, 1918, and filed in court April 12, 1918. The undisputed evidence shows that the mule alleged to have been killed by defendant was killed in October, 1918, about six months after the indictment was returned. It is possible that this is a mistake as to date, but, if so, there is nothing here to indicate it. The affirmative charge was asked by defendant, and should have been given.

The other rulings of the court are free from error.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.