Opinion ID: 1105501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the trial court err in failing to give certain jury charges requested by Payne?

Text: Payne requested the following jury instruction: I charge you, the Jury, that if the circumstances as proven are capable of explanation of any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the Defendant's innocence and if the circumstances are capable of such explanation, then the defendant should be acquitted. The court denied this charge and instructed the jury, in pertinent part, as follows: The evidence that I have talked to you about in this case is evidence that has been testified to or introduced in some way. Now, some of the evidence in this case has been what we call circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence is defined under the law as positive proof of circumstances or facts sought which tend to prove the existence of other facts sought to be proven. Circumstantial evidence is an inference that is drawn from certain physical facts that are found as a result of the evidence. As I told you, the defendant in this case is presumed to be innocent. When part or all of the evidence that is relied on by the prosecution in a case is circumstantial, the chain of circumstances must be so complete and of such a character so as to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty of the defendant's guilt. The evidence must be so strong and cogent as to show the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant not guilty [sic]. A conviction may be had upon evidence which is partially circumstantial so long as the evidence is so strong and cogent as to prove the guilt of the defendant to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt. A conviction may not be had upon circumstantial evidence if there is an inference consistent with the innocence of the defendant. Evidence of circumstantial nature may be sufficient to convict if such evidence convinces the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. What I just told you there is if some of the evidence relied on is circumstantial, the burden is the same. The State must prove to you through those circumstances the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. That would be the duty that would be placed upon the State in this case. R.T. 815-17 (emphasis added). Payne argues that inference, as that term is used in the court's jury charge, does not mean substantially the same as hypothesis, as used in Payne's requested jury charge. The State contends that there was no need for the trial court to give the jury charge requested by Payne because, it argues, the charge given by the trial court substantially covered the same subject matter. We agree with the statement of the Court of Criminal Appeals that the state is not asked to eliminate every single hypothesis inconsistent with the defendant's guilt, rather only such hypotheses as are reasonable, springing from a consideration and comparison of the entire evidence. 683 So.2d at 452, quoting Crawford v. State, 112 Ala. 1, 21 So. 214 (1896), and Cox v. State, 373 So.2d 342, 345 (Ala.Cr.App.1979). Black's Law Dictionary 743 (6th ed.1990), defines hypothesis as A supposition, assumption, or theory; a theory set up by the prosecution, on a criminal trial, or by the defense, as an explanation of the facts in evidence, and a ground for inferring guilt or innocence, as the case may be, or as indicating a probable or possible motive for the crime. (Emphasis added.) In support of his argument, Payne cites Ex parte Smiley, 655 So.2d 1091 (Ala.1995), for the proposition that the judge should have used the word hypothesis rather than inference. However, Smiley differs from this case in that it did not address a jury charge; rather it addressed the sufficiency of the evidence in a murder case. We stated in Smiley that a person's presence at the scene of a crime is not enough to justify a conviction for the crime, but that the person's presence at the scene, taken along with other facts and circumstances tending to connect that person with the crime, may be enough to support a conviction. 655 So.2d at 1094. We also set out in Smiley the applicable test: [W]hether a jury might reasonably find that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; not whether the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but guilt, but rather whether a jury might reasonably conclude that it does.... Stated differently, to support the jury's verdict of guilty, circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom have to be inconsistent with any rational hypothesis of innocence. 655 So.2d at 1094. (Emphasis added.) The test in Smiley states that an inference or a hypothesis of innocence must be a reasonable one. The refusal of a requested written instruction is not a cause for reversal, even if the requested charge is a correct statement of the law, so long as it appears that the same rule of law was substantially and fairly given to the jury in the court's oral charge or in other charges given at the request of the parties. Rule 21.1, Ala.R.Cr.P.; Marek v. State, 556 So.2d 383 (Ala.1989) (if requested charge is subsumed in the court's oral charge, the refusal of the charge is not error under Rule 14, Temp. Ala.R.Cr.P.). We hold that the charge given in this case did substantially and fairly state the same rule of law that was stated in the charge Payne requested. In summary, the trial court's charge refers to the use of circumstantial evidence in the case; it clearly indicates that the State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; and, finally, it states that the defendant cannot be convicted if the evidence leads to an inference consistent with innocence.