Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

185 Ala. 1

Brooks v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 18, 1913

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1913-12-18

Percy E. Brooks was convicted of an assault with intent to ravish, and appealed to the Court of Appeals, which court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court, and he brings certiorari to review the action of the Court of Appeals. Writ awarded, and judgment of Court of Appeals, reversed and remanded, remanding the cause for a new trial.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1913-12-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently March 1990

19 state decisions

40191319201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

ANDERSON, J.

¶1We are of the opinion that the trial court erred in refusing the defendant’s requested charges C and 11, and that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the refusal of said charges was not reversible error. They were not subject to the criticism *3made of them in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and were not otherwise faulty. Nor does it appear that they were duplicated or so covered by the defendant’s-given charges as to render the refusal of same harmless error.

¶2The defendant having brought out, upon the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, a delay on her part in. instituting the prosecution, she had the right to explain said delay by a detail of any facts or circumstances causing or contributing to same, but not by stating her-intentions or uncommunicated motives, and the trial, court should observe this rule upon the next trial, in. the event the defendant seeks to gain any advantage resulting from said delay.

¶3• Certiorari awarded. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to said court for further action in conformity with this opinion. All the Justices concur, except de Graffenried, J., who dissents.

/185/ala/1 · .json · Public domain