Court Opinion

ID: 9527598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:31:45.960424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:55.666003
License: Public Domain

On rehearing.
Appellant states that the first charge listed in the opinion was refused in Jaco v. State, 20 Ala.App. 559, 103 So. 917, and this action constituted reversible error.
There is no question but that the legal presumption of innocence is evidence in behalf of the defendant and he is entitled to have the jury charged to that effect. Gordon v. State, 268 Ala. 517, 110 So.2d 334; Amos v. State, 123 Ala. 50, 26 So. 524; Harris v. State, 123 Ala. 69, 26 So. 515; Bryant v. State, 116 Ala. 445, 23 So. 40; Newson v. State, 107 Ala. 133, 18 So. 206; Perry v. State, 37 Ala.App. 683, 74 So.2d 619.
It is axiomatic that a defendant is entitled to have the jury charged that if, upon consideration of all the evidence, they are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt, they cannot find him guilty, or an equivalent of such a charge. The correct terminology in a criminal case is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” because each juror must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty before .there can be a conviction. Carter v. State, 103 Ala. 93, 15 So. 893, 6A Ala.Digest, Criminal Law, &wkey; 789(3).
The correct phraseology for charges in civil cases is that the jury “being reasonably satisfied from the evidence.” Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Stanley, 276 Ala. 642, 165 So.2d 731; Southern Railway Co. v. Sanford, 262 Ala. 5, 76 So. 2d 164.
The judges of our circuit courts are familiar with these rules and when they see the civil terminology used in a charge in referring to the burden of proof on the State, ini a criminal case, or the criminal terminology used in referring to the burden of proof in a civil case, they mark it “refused” without reading it any further because they know it is misleading.
Before this court will put the trial court in error for refusing a written charge, it must be free from involvement and misleading tendencies. Jackson v. State, 272 Ala. 566, 133 So.2d 210; Turner v. State, 160 Ala. 40, 49 So. 828.
It will be noted that the concluding part of the charge in question reads “and you cannot find him guilty until, from the-evidence, his guilt is established to your reasonable satisfaction, and beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis supplied). The charge mixed the terminology of both the civil and criminal case requirements as to-the burden of proof and was correctly refused because it was misleading. This is-one of those charges which either the giving or refusing would not present reversible error, but it was more properly refused..
In Jaco v. State, 20 Ala.App. 559, 103 So. 917, the Court of Appeals said:
“The court did not in its oral charge-ref er to the subject covered by said written charge, and its refusal was error that will cause the case to be reversed.”'
We checked the original record and we-find that nowhere in its oral charge did' the trial court mention the presumption of innocence.
In every criminal case the defendant is. clothed with the presumption of innocence,, an abiding presumption to be overcome-only by evidence of guilt removing all reasonable doubt. ■ This presumption, and the burden of proof east upon the State, should! *626be fully presented in the oral charge. Turner v. State, 238 Ala. 352, 191 So. 396; Smith v. State, 32 Ala.App. 155, 22 So.2d 607; Waldrop v. State, 41 Ala.App. 237, 130 So.2d 355.
We think the Court of Appeals reversed in the Jaco case because the trial court failed to charge on the presumption of innocence, and the “subject covered by said written charge” was the presumption of innocence. In the record of that case, only two requested charges appear in the bill of exceptions, and the charge quoted in the opinion is the only one dealing with the presumption of innocence.
We note that the charge in the Jaco case has been mentioned only twice in subsequent cases. In Burk v. State, 22 Ala.App. 107, 114 So. 71, the charge there before the court was held to be “materially different” from the charge in Jaco. In Dunn v. State, 23 Ala.App. 568, 129 So. 298, the Jaco case is cited with others holding it error to refuse presumption of innocence charges. We have found no cases where this court has approved a charge which included both “reasonably satisfied” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a presumption of innocence charge. In Thomasson v. State, 21 Ala.App. 562, 110 So. 563, where charge 1 included both “reasonably satisfied” and “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the court said:
“The measure of proof in a criminal case necessary to a conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt, and not to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury. Charge 1 was therefore properly refused. * * ”
We think this addition to our original opinion explains why we held the subject charge to be misleading and why the trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing to give it.
Application for rehearing overruled.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.