Court Opinion

ID: 9825473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:06:12.125936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:51.750838
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In Tatum v. State (Ala. App.) 100 So. 569,1 this court treated at length a charge similar to refused charge E. The case at bar is not based upon circumstantial. evidence. The evidence showing the homicide is direct and not dependent upon hypotheses based upon proven collateral facts. This distinction is also recognized in Ex parte Bud Hill (Ala. Sup.) 100 So. 315.2 Where the evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime is circumstantial, charge E would be proper. Where the evidence connecting the defendant with the homicide is direct, as here, the charge is a mere argument and is properly refused. The cases and authorities dealing with this and similar charges are considered and dealt with in the two cases above eited.
Charge 4 was bad as not having been predicated upon all of the evidence. See authorities cited in original opinion. It follows that that part of the opinion in Baker v. State (Ala. Sup.) 97 So. 902,3 approving a similar charge must be overruled and has been expressly overruled on this point. Jeff Rountree v. State, ante, p. 225, 101 So. 325.
Charge 19. — Every substantial right to which the defendant was entitled, is covered by given charge 28. Moreover, the charge is not technically correct, as it assumes, as matter of law, that George Morgan, the defendant, was a reasonable man.
The application for rehearing is overruled.

 Ante, p. 24.

 211 Ala. 311.

 19 Ala. App. 487.