Court Opinion

ID: 9824761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:19:28.595694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:31.872734
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
Upon the application for rehearing our attention is directed to the fact we did not discuss the action of the trial court in refusing Charge No. 15, to the defendant. This was an inadvertence. We were of the impression that we had, in our opinion, discussed each and every insistence of error. Said charge reads as follows:
“The Court charges the jury that if a conviction in this case depends upon the testimony of a single witness; and if the jury have a reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of the testimony of such witness, they cannot convict the defendant.”
Under the evidence in this case said refused charge 15 was abstract, as it clearly appears that the conviction of the defendant was not dependent upon the evidence of a single witness. There were *594several other witnesses upon whose testimony the jury could have rested its verdict of guilt. As stated in brief of the Attorney General:
“There was evidence that this defendant, before he went out of the house into the yard, was brandishing a knife and threatening to cut Snapper Flowers and that he was cursing and guilty of other acts of a hostile nature; that he was ushered out of the house by the deceased and he went out in the yard and that the deceased was out there with him. One of the witnesses testified that he heard scuffling out in the yard and soon thereafter the deceased came in the house and stated that the defendant had cut him. The defendant himself admitted that he was there at the house and that he had been drinking and shooting craps with some other guests of the deceased. All of this testimony went to the jury and was available to it in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Therefore, the State’s case as to the guilt of the defendant was not dependent upon the evidence of a single witness, namely, the deceased.”
We are clear to the conclusion that under the evidence, the defendant was properly convicted, and that no error prejudicial to his substantial rights was committed upon the trial of this case.
Application for rehearing overruled.