Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

141 Ala. 37

Johnson v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1904

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1904-11-15

Tried before the Hen. A. H. Alston. The apeallant in this cause, Larkin Johnson, was indicted and tried for the murder of one John Lawley, was contacted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to be hanged.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“unavailing, unless all the charges should have been given.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 653 So. 2d 1006 - Davenport v. State

Relies on Verberg v. State · Rarden v. Cunningham

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1904-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 1994

7 state decisions

401904191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HAHALSON, J.

¶1The only question presented for re-view was tlie request of the court to give six charges asked by defendant. In respect, of these the bill of exceptions recites: “The defendant asked that the following charges in writing be given by the court to the jury, to-wit.” Here follows the charges from 1 to 6, inclusive. At the end of the. 6th charge appear the words, “The court refused to give such charges, and the defendant duly excepted.’’ The request for these charges, as well as exception to the action of the court in refusing them, was general. Under such conditions, the exception was unavailing, unless all the charges should have been given. Rarden v. Cunningham, 136 Ala. 263; Verberg v. State, 137 Ala. 73.

¶2The first five charges are so manifestly incorrect, as to require no special consideration.

¶3Defendant’s counsel admit that some of these charges were bad, and the only one insisted on by him, was the refusal of the court to give the 6th charge. That charge was misleading and incorrect. It singles out a part of the evidence, without reference to the other parts, and leaves it to the jury to determine the elements of self-defense.

¶4Affirmed.

/141/ala/37 · .json · Public domain