Court Opinion

ID: 9667261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:40:47.092382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:36.575037
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
The Supreme Court held in Gordon v. State, 268 Ala. 517, 110 So.2d 334, that the same rule of law in refused Charge No. 6 was substantially and fairly given to the jury in the court’s oral charge and also in written Charge No. 7 given at the request of the defendant. Tit. 7, § 273, Code, supra.
In Guenther v. State, 282 Ala. 620, 213 So.2d 679, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle 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. The written charge requested by defendant used civil case terminology, “being reasonably satisfied from the evidence,” and was misleading. The trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing it.
We hold in our opinion, supra, that the refused charge was substantially covered by defendant’s given Charges 8 and 9 and the oral charge. Neither of the written Charges 8 and 9, nor the oral charge, were general as in Davis v. State, 284 Ala. 135, 222 So.2d 719, but met the demands of law. Tit. 7, § 273, Code, supra.
Opinion extended. Application overruled.
All the Judges concur.