Court Opinion

ID: 9825135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:09:14.708384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:26.663859
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Charge No. 2, as requested in writing by defendant, is materially different from charges held good in Forney v. State, 98 Ala. 19, 13 South. 540, and Beason v. State, 5 Ala. App. 103, 59 South. 712, in that the charge requested in the instant case begins by a statement of the duty of the jury, merely, to weigh and consider all the evidence in the case, which is elementary. It then proceeds to predicate an acquittal upon a reasonable doubt growing out of any part of the evidence, which is not the law, while ' the charges in the eases supra predicate a reasonable doubt upon the whole evidence.
Application overruled.