Court Opinion

ID: 9680032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:17:22.686299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:24.762344
License: Public Domain

COLEMAN, Justice
(dissenting):
VI
I do not concur in the holding that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding there was error in overruling objection to asking Ijlrs. Wilbanks as to whether or not she and her husband had stayed away from Barbara King’s funeral. Under the decisions of this court in the four cases next quoted from, the ascertainment and adjudication of the state of the transcript of the evidence in the record before the Court of Criminal Appeals is the responsibility of that court and is not reviewable on certiorari. This court has said:
“This court has repeatedly laid down and followed the rule that it will revise the rulings of the Court of Appeals upon certiorari only as to questions of law, and not upon a finding of facts, or in the application of the facts to the law. — Livingston v. State, 61 South. 54; Ex parte Savannah Williams, 62 South. 63; Ex parte Western Union Co., 63 South. 88. Therefore, the holding of the Court of Appeals that the record failed to disclose an exception to the ruling of the trial court in overruling objections as to certain parts of the evidence of Tom Dye was a finding upon facts, and is a ruling which we will not revise.” Kirkwood v. State, 184 Ala. 9, 10, 11, 63 So. 990.
“In Kirkwood’s Case, 184 Ala. 9, 63 South. 990 (petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals), it was decided that the ascertainment and adjudication by the Court of Appeals of the state of the record before it was not reviewable on certiorari; the ruling being referred to the principle of previous decision here. Subsequent frequent illustrations of the principle are noted in the Minderhout Case, 195 Ala. 420, 71 South. 91, among others.
“ . . . . Whether the ascertainment of the status indicated was well founded on the record before the Court of Appeals is not, under the principle of the Kirkwood Case, reviewable here. This court leaves the responsibility for the decision of such questions with the Court of Appeals.” Ex parte Patt, 206 Ala. 196, 89 So. 432.
“ . . . .In the recent case of Ex parte Patt, 89 South. 432, this court announced the rule stated in previous cases that the ascertainment and adjudication by the Court of Appeals of the state of the record before it was not reviewable on certiorari. See, also, Kirkwood’s Case, [Kirkwood v. State,] 184 Aia. 9, 63 South. 990, and Minderhout’s Case, 195 Ala. 420, 71 South. 91.” Ex parte Williams, 207 Ala. 69, 70, 91 So. 915, 916.
“ . . . . We are not permitted under our limited review to consider any of the evidence not set out by the Court of Appeals.....” Clayton v. Ragsdale, 276 Ala. 321, 322, 161 So.2d 804, 805.
The holding of this court in the instant case is an overruling of many decisions and a clear reversal of the rule heretofore followed by this court for fifty-nine years in reviewing the appellate courts of this state on petition for certiorari.
*176IX
I do not concur in the holding that refusal of defendant’s requested Charge No. 17 was not error. The cases cited by the Court of Criminal Appeals appear to support the proposition that Charge No. 17 is a correct statement of the law. This court has said:
“ . . . . The jury are not authorized to find the defendant guilty on the evidence of a single witness, upon whose testimony the question of guilt depends, if they have a reasonable doubt of the truth of his statements. — Washington v. State, 58 Ala. 355.....” Segars v. State, 86 Ala. 59, 60, 5 So. 558, 559.
The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the state did not make out a prima facie case except for Dr. Rehling’s testimony that the bullet found in the wall of King’s house was fired by Wilbanks’ rifle; from a point immediately behind his house; and blew off the top of deceased’s skull.
“It is well settled under our decisions that on certiorari this court will not enter into a. redetermination of facts as found by the Court of Appeals, and such findings are not subject to review by this court. Ex parte Pesnell, 240 Ala. 457, 199 So. 726; Broadway v. Alabama Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Co., 246 Ala. 201, 20 So.2d 41.” State Dept. of Industrial Relations v. Ford, 278 Ala. 352, 353, 178 So.2d 190, 191.
Unless this court read the testimony, this court cannot reasonably say that the finding of the Court of Criminal Appeals is incorrect or untrue, and, on the basis of that finding, the conclusion folows inescapably that the jury cannot find defendant guilty if they have a reasonable doubt as to the correctness of Dr. Rehling’s opinion that the bullet was fired by defendant’s rifle from a point immediately' behind defendant’s house as stated by the witness.
The jury might well believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness spoke truthfully when he stated what his opinion was; but, if the jury were not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that his stated opinion was correct, there would be no basis in the evidence to support a finding of guilty.
In the oral charge, the court did charge in the usual manner on presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, reconciliation of conflicting testimony, and other matters; but I have not found anything in the oral charge that I can point to and say this part of the oral charge covers the proposition stated in Charge 17. The State has. not pointed out any such part of the oral charge. I am not persuaded that Charge 17 is covered by the oral charge or by any given charge.
In these circumstances, I am of opinion that defendant was entitled to have the court instruct the jury that:
“ ‘Defendant’s Charge No. 17
“ ‘The Court charges the Jury that if a conviction in this case depends on the testimony of a single witness; and if the Jury have a reasonable doubt as to-the correctness of the testimony of such witness, they cannot convict the Defendant.’ ”
X
I agree that defendant’s requested Charge No. 2 was adequately covered by the court’s oral charge. Stokley v. State, 254 Ala. 534, 49 So.2d 284; Johnson v. State, 42 Ala.App. 511, 169 So.2d 773, ¶ [5]; Richardson v. State, 43 Ala.App. 412, 191 So.2d 251, ¶ [6].
For the reasons stated, I would quash the writ of cei'tiorari.
HEFLIN, C. J., concxxrs in section IX of the foregoing dissenting opinion.