Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

360 So. 2d 1074

Tillman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided May 30, 1978

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1978-05-30

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. 27 "`If you have a reasonable doubt of Defendant's guilt growing out of the evidence or any part of it , you must acquit him.'" (Emphasis added.)”

quoted by 6 later decisions, including Brown v. State, Dillard v. State

“"If after considering all the evidence in the case, you have an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge, then you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and it would be your duty to convict the defendant. The reasonable doubt which entitles an accused to an acquittal is not a mere fanciful, vague, conjectural, or speculative doubt, but a reasonably substantial doubt arising from the evidence and remaining after a careful consideration of the testimony such as reasonable, fair-minded and conscientious men and women would entertain under all of the circumstances. . . . "If after comparing and considering all of the evidence in the case your minds are left with such a condition that you cannot say you have an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the defendant's guilt, then you are not convinced beyond a reasonable *Page 948 doubt and the defendant would be entitled to an acquittal." (Emphasis added.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 371 So. 2d 947 - Dillard v. State

Relies on Bryant v. State · 42 Ala. App. 511 - Johnson v. State · 37 Ala. App. 603 - Sanford v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-05-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 2000

18 state decisions

1001978198019902000decided

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 →

BOOKOUT, Judge.

¶1Assault and battery; sentence: ninety days and a fine of $500.

¶2The trial judge refused Charge No. 15 requested by the defense, which was as follows:

“The Court charges the jury that if you have a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt growing out of the evidence or any part of it, you must acquit him.”

¶3The trial court did not instruct the jury that a reasonable doubt may arise from only a part of the evidence. Neither was *1075that matter covered in any given charges. On the contrary, the trial court instructed the jury as to a reasonable doubt arising after considering all the evidence.

¶4In Rakestraw v. State, 211 Ala. 535, 101 So. 181 (1924), the Supreme Court held that it was error to refuse to give the following charge:

“ ‘If, after considering all the evidence in the case, you have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant Jim Rake-straw growing out of any part of the evidence, you should find him not guilty.' ”

¶5Citing Rakestrawas authority, this court in Sanford v. State, 37 Ala.App. 603, 75 So.2d 109 (1954), held that it was error to refuse to give the following charge:

“ ‘The Court charges the jury that, if the jury, upon considering all the evidence, have a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt, arising out of any part of the evidence, they should find him not guilty.’ ”

¶6The opinion in Sanfordsets out a lengthy history of the charge, citing numerous cases wherein the substance of the charge in question had been approved.

¶7In Johnson v. State, 42 Ala.App. 511, 169 So.2d 773 (1964), this court held that it was reversible error to refuse to give the following charge:

“ ‘7. The court charges the jury, if the jury upon considering all of the testimony, have a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt, arising out of any part of the evidence, they should find the defendant not guilty.’ ”

¶8In Smith v. State, 51 Ala.App. 527, 287 So.2d 238 (1973), cert. denied, 292 Ala. 750, 289 So.2d 808 (1974), this court again found reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to give the following charge:

“‘3. The court charges you, gentlemen of the jury, that if, upon considering all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the Defendant, arising out of any part of the evidence, you must find the Defendant not guilty.’ ”

¶9More recently, reversible error was found by this court in Bryant v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 348 So.2d 1136, cert. denied, Ala., 348 So.2d 1138 (1977), for failure to give the following charge:

“. . . ‘. . .If you have a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt growing out of the evidence or any part of it, you must acquit him.’ ”

¶10Our most recent holding in this regard is found in Richards v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 358 So.2d 488 [Ms. March 21, 1978], wherein we found reversible error in the refusal of the trial court to give the following charge:

“ ‘D. 4 I charge you that if you have a reasonable doubt of James Richards’ guilt growing out of the evidence or any part of it, you must acquit him.’ ”

¶11Based on the foregoing authorities, we find that the appellant in the instant case was entitled to have the jury charge that a reasonable doubt as to his guilt may grow out of any part of the evidence. The refusal to so instruct the jury mandates a new trial.

¶12REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.
/360/so2d/1074 · .json · Public domain