Court Opinion

ID: 9825081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:03:04.659191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:23.835440
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The point made on rehearing is that the Court charged the jury, “In the event you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant, the form of *27your verdict will be, we, the jury, find the defendant guilty of burglary as charged in the indictment;” whereas, the verdict of the jury, as returned, was, “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment.”
 The indictment was in one count, charging burglary; the evidence for the State, if believed beyond a reasonable doubt, was sufficient to justify a verdict of guilty, as charged in the indictment. There was not, under the evidence, any room for a verdict of a lesser degree and, therefore, there was no error in the charge of the court that if a conviction was had, it must be for burglary, and a general verdict will be referred to the one count in the indictment charging burglary. McGee v. State, 20 Ala.App. 221, 101 So. 321; Watson v. State, 20 Ala.App. 372, 102 So. 492; Ex parte Watson, 212 Ala. 330, 102 So. 494.
The application is overruled.