Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

170 Ala. 55

Campbell v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 12, 1911

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1911-01-12

Heard before Hon. W. H. Lindsev. Will Campbell was convicted of violating the stock law and he appeals. The charge for the state-was faulty in that it was not predicated upon the belief of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The stock law district was not properly established. — Acts 1900-1, p. 2066; Flowers v. Gramt, 129 Ala. 275; 68 Ala. 129.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1924

1 state decisions

Relies on Stanfill v. Court of County Revenue · Townsend v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1911-01-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McCLELLAN, J.

¶1The general affirmative charge,, given at the request of the prosecution, omitted to exact, as the condition to conviction of the defendant, the requisite degree of belief of guilt, viz., beyond a reasonable -doubt. It was, for that reason, error to- give the charge in the form indicated.Townsend v. State, 137 Ala. 91, 34 South. 382.

¶2The bill of exceptions contains the order of the commissioner’s court of Choctaw county, wherein reference is made to the petition praying the establishment of the stock law district in which defendant is alleged to have knowingly permitted his cow to run at large, but does not contain the petition mentioned. In such cases the petition is, necessarily, an important factor on the inquiry, whether the court acquired jurisdiction to legal*57ly, effectively, establish the district.—Stanfill v. Dallas County, 80 Ala. 287, among others. Since a reversal must enter, for the error stated, we will not undertake to pass upon the question whether the stock district was legally created, in the incomplete condition of the record- — the absence of the petition.

¶3Reversed and remanded.

Dowdell, O. J., and Simpson and Mayfield, JJ., concur.
/170/ala/55 · .json · Public domain