Case ID: ala_241/html/0141-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      BOULDIN, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

1 So.2d 605
    EMERSON v. STATE.
    6 Div. 848.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    April 10, 1941.
    DeGraffenried & McDuffie, of Tuscaloosa, for petitioner.
    Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and John W. Vardaman, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.
   BOULDIN, Justice.

The holding of the Court of Appeals that the additional instruction given the jury was free from reversible error upon a consideration of the entire charge is sustained on examination of the record.

The excerpt' quoted in the opinion was only a part of the supplemental instruction. The court proceeded at the time to reassert there should be no conviction unless satisfied of guilt from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; and further instructed, that if they so found, they need not impose a fine, but in their discretion, could leave the punishment to be fixed by the court. Code of 1923, § 5268.

That the jury was not misled is indicated by the fact that they did not assess a fine, but expressly by their verdict, left the fixing of punishment to the court.

The court having imposed hard labor for the county as a punishment for the offense, there was no error in imposing a further period of hard labor for costs. Code of 1923, § 5291.

Writ denied.

GARDNER, C. J., and FOSTER, and LIVINGSTON, JJ., concur.