Court Opinion

ID: 9825529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:18:03.084559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:56.824117
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the application for rehearing it is first insisted that the court erred.in the refusal of charge 7. This charge was properly refused as it pretermits a consideration by the jury of all the evidence adduced upon the trial; and, further, it gives undue prominence to the evidence of defendant as to his alleged alibi.
Refused charge 8 was fairly and substantially covered by the court’s oral charge, wherein the court stated: “The defendant offers some testimony here that he wasn’t there. In other words what we call an alibi, evidence that he wasn’t at that place but was some place else. If the testimony in support of that defense is sufficient to originate in your minds a reasonable doubt as to whether he was there and participated in the manufacture of that whiskey then he is entitled to án acquittal.” Refused charge 8 was also fairly and substantially covered by written given charges 2, 4, 8, and 9.
Refused charge 3 deals with the unanimity of the verdict of the jury. This charge was fairly and substantially covered by given charge 5.
Application overruled.