Title: Carroll v. State

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

407 So. 2d 177 (1981)
Ex parte State of Alabama.
(In re Bruce Quillan CARROLL
v.
STATE of Alabama).
80-433.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 25, 1981.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Thomas R. Allison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
*178 Donald R. White, Moulton, for respondent.
ALMON, Justice.
We granted the State's petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals which held that the trial court erred when it refused a jury charge requested by the defendant.
The defendant was indicted and tried on a charge of robbery. He requested thirty-seven written jury charges that were all denied. The jury found the defendant guilty and the judge sentenced him to fifteen years in prison. The case was appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, 407 So. 2d 173, which reversed the trial court. The basis for the reversal was the refusal of the trial judge to give defendant's requested charge number 27 which read as follows:
As authority supporting its decision, the Court of Criminal Appeals cited the following language in Brooks v. State, 380 So. 2d 1012 (Ala.Crim.App.1980):
The oral charge given by the trial judge stated:
We feel the above oral charge correctly and adequately stated the appropriate rule of law. Under similar circumstances the Court of Criminal Appeals has held:
Sellers v. State, 353 So. 2d 535 (Ala.Crim. App.1977).
The Court in Sellers went on to state:
However, it is the charge in its totality and not some "magic words" that must determine whether the defendant's rights have been protected or error committed. In the present case the defendant was certainly protected and his right to the presumption of innocence was adequately put before the jury. Hence, there was no error committed by the trial judge in refusing the requested jury charge. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All the Justices concur.