Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

17 Ala. App. 28

81 So 364

Taylor v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided March 18, 1919

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1919-03-18

<p>1. Criminal Daw <&wkey;7S5 (15) — Refusal of Charge — Effect of Willful Falsehood.</p> <p>Where evidence tended to show that witness had made statements contradicting' his testimony touching question of his identification of accused at time of assault, a question as to which evidence was in sharp conflict, refusal of defendant’s requested charge that, if witness had willfully sworn falsely concerning any material point, his testimony might be disregarded entirely, was reversible error.</p> <p>2. Criminal Law <&wkey;805(3) — Instructions— “Point” — “Fact.”</p> <p>Court was not justified in refusing charge that, if witness had sworn falsely concerning any material “point,” his testimony might be disregarded entirely for the reason that it used quoted word instead of “fact”; court in dealing with the same question in a general way having used the word “point” as synonymous with “fact” (citing 6 Words and Phrases, p. 5420).</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Fact; Point.]</p> <p>cS^jFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes</p>

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently May 1941

11 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“There was evidence tending to show that the witness Marhaman had made statements out of court contradictory of his testimony on the trial, touching the question of his identification of the defendant at the time of the assault, a question as to which the evidence was in sharp conflict, and it was the defendant's right to have the jury instructed on this point specifically as to this witness.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Lawman v. State

“If you believe any witness has willfully sworn falsely concerning any material point in this case, then you are authorized to disregard his testimony entirely.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Lawman v. State

Relies on Hale v. State · Reynolds v. State · Kent v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1919-03-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BROWN, P. J.

¶1 [1] The defendant requested and the court refused the following charge:

“If you believe Levi Marchman has willfully sworn falsely concerning' any material point, in this case, then you are authorized to disregard his testimony entirely.”

¶2 Unless tbe refusal of the charge can be-justified for the reason that it uses the word “point” instead of “fact,” the refusal of the charge was reversible error. Pearson v. State, 13 Ala. App. 181, 69 South. 845; Reynolds v. State, 196 Ala. 586, 72 South. 20.

¶3 [2] An examination of the record discloses the fact that the court, in dealing with-the same question in a general way, used the word “point” as synonymous with “fact” (6 Words and Phrases, p. 5420; Kent v. State, 64 Ark. 247, 41 S. W. 849), and from this it is manifest that the charge was not refused for this reason.

¶4 There was evidence tending to show that the witness Marchman had made statements out of court contradictory of his testimony on the trial touching the cfuestion of his identification of the defendant at the time of the assault, a question as to which the evidence was in sharp conflict, and it was the-defendant’s right to have the jury instructed on this point specifically as to this witness. Hale v. State, 122 Ala. 85, 26 South. 236.

¶5 We find no other error in the record, but, for tbe refusal of the charge, the judgment will be reversed.

¶6 Reversed and remanded.

/17/alaapp/28 · .json · Public domain