Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

339 So. 2d 99

Cannon v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided August 31, 1976

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1976-08-31

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1979

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““At trial appellant tendered the following charge: ‘9. I charge you, members of the Jury, that the evidence against the Defendant is partly circumstantial and his innocence must be presumed by the Jury, until the case against him is proved in all its material circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt; to find him guilty as charged, the evidence must be strong and cogent, and unless it is so strong and cogent as to show his guilt to a moral certainty, the Jury must find him not guilty.’ Nothing in the oral charge covered circumstantial evidence. “The refusal thereof was error. Gilmore v. State, 99 Ala. 154 , 13 So. 536 (Charge 6) and Fowler v. State, 155 Ala. 21 , 45 So. 913 (Charge 18). Rule 45 does not apply because of the omission of any charge covering the principles of law as to circumstantial evidence.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 376 So. 2d 810 - Graham v. State

““The State’s proof was that certain tools used in the burglary resembled those bought by Cannon, and in one instance by a friend at his behest, from a hardware store at or near Opp. Also, after being accused, appellant fled. He testified this was to avoid a marijuana prosecution.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 376 So. 2d 810 - Graham v. State

Relies on 42 Ala. App. 357 - Wildman v. State · Gilmore v. State · Fowler v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-08-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CATES, Presiding Judge.

¶1Burglary 2d degree and Grand Larceny; sentence, ten years. See Wildman v. State, 42 Ala.App. 357, 165 So.2d 396.

¶2The State’s proof was that certain tools used in a burglary resembled those bought by Cannon, and in one instance by a friend at his behest, from a hardware store at or near Opp. Also, after being accused, appellant fled. He testified this was to avoid a marijuana prosecution.

¶3*100At trial appellant tendered the following charge:

“9. I charge you, members of the Jury, that the evidence against the Defendant is partly circumstantial and his innocence must be presumed by the Jury, until the case against him is proved in all its material circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt; to find him guilty as charged, the evidence must be strong and cogent, and unless it is so strong and cogent as to show his guilt to a moral certainty, the Jury must find him not guilty.”

¶4Nothing in the oral charge covered circumstantial evidence.

¶5The refusal thereof was error. Gilmore v. State, 99 Ala. 154, 13 So. 536, (Charge 6) and Fowler v. State, 155 Ala. 21, 45 So. 913 (Charge 18). Rule 45 does not apply because of the omission of any charge covering the principles of law as to circumstantial evidence.

¶6The judgment below is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

¶7REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.
/339/so2d/99 · .json · Public domain