Court Opinion

ID: 9938871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:04:07.242784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:30.189657
License: Public Domain

On certiorari the Supreme Court held that we were in error in holding that an *Page 627 
exception to the trial court's oral charge was not sufficiently definite to invite review.
The Supreme Court also held that the portion of the oral charge to which exceptions were interposed was erroneous because of the omission of the qualifying phrase "unless the evidence which proves the killing rebuts the presumption."
The cause has been remanded to this court for further consideration.
In consonance with the Supreme Court's decision, we are left to determine whether from the evidence the omission can be justified because it is abstract. We cannot so hold. There is evidence to sustain the position of the appellant that he acted in self-defense, "or the homicide was the result of sudden passion, engendered by sufficient provocation, and without malice". Hornsby v. State, 94 Ala. 55, 10 So. 522, 527.
It follows that the judgment below must be reversed and the cause remanded. It is so ordered.
Reversed and remanded.