Court Opinion

ID: 9825294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:31:27.762246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:40.163912
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the foregoing opinion we stated that the several insistences of error predicated upon the court’s oral charge were not presented for consideration, as no exceptions thereto were shown to have been reserved. In this we - were mistaken, which mistake was due to the unusual manner of the preparation of the transcript. As a matter of fact exceptions were duly reserved to several excerpts of the court’s oral charge. One of these exceptions must prevail, on account of the mandatory instructions given by the court that the jury “are to consider” the testimony of defendant “in the light of the fact he is the defendant and interested in *564the result of your verdict.” The instructions of this character many times approved are to' the effect that the jury “may” (and not must) so consider the testimony of defendant. This exact question has been considered and decided by this' court in the case of Sam Mann v. State, 103 So. 6041 (opinion by Samford, J.). See, also, Thornton v. State, 18 Ala. App. 225, 90 So. 66. Upon authority of that case the application for rehearing, here made, is granted. The affirmance of the cause is set aside, and the judgment appealed from is reversed and' cause remanded.
Application granted.
Reversed and remanded.

 Ante, p. 540.