Case Title: Smith v. State

Citation: 80 So. 2d 307

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1955-02-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
80 So. 2d 307 (1955)
Lenward SMITH
v.
STATE.
5 Div. 599.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
February 24, 1955.
Rehearing Denied May 19, 1955.
Walter J. Merrill, Anniston, and H. M. Britton, Wedowee, for petitioner.
Robert Straub, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Owen Bridges, Montgomery, of counsel, opposed.
STAKELY, Justice.
We have considered the exception to the oral charge of the court as set out in the opinion of the Court of Appeals and have concluded that the Court of Appeals reached a correct conclusion with reference thereto. As we understand the opinion of the Court of Appeals the State had one factual theory while the defendant had another factual theory. Solution of these different theories made a question for the jury. According to the theory of the prosecution the defendant was under the duty to retreat in accordance with the oral charge of the court. Under the factual theory of the defense the defendant was not under the duty to retreat and exception to the oral charge was made because of the failure of the court to charge on the law as it is claimed to relate to the theory of the defense.
In the instant case it is sufficient to say that when the oral charge is not as full and instructive as defendant's counsel desired his remedy is to request written charges which elucidate and explain the *308 defendant's theory of the case. We quote briefly from two cases which state the principle here involved.
In the case of Williams v. State, 147 Ala. 10, 41 So. 992, 997, this court said:
See also Brock v. State, 235 Ala 304, 178 So. 548; Alabama Jury Instructions by Walter B. Jones, Vol. 1, p. 108.
It appears that the defendant requested written charges which explained and elucidated his theory of his defense and the court gave these charges which shows that the procedure outlined in the foregoing authorities was complied with.
It results that the judgment of the Court of Appeals is due to be affirmed.
Affirmed.
All the Justices concur.