Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

88 Ala. 188

Riley v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1889

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1889-11-15

Prom the Circuit Court of Butler. Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard. The defendant in this case, Paul Riley, was indicted for burglary in breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Hugh Black, with the intent to commit a felony; was convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of five years.

Relies on Mose v. State · Snider v. Burks · Hussey v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1948

5 state decisions

301889189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

SOMERVILLE, J.

¶1The court erred in refusing to give the first charge requested by the defendant, which was, that “unless the evidence against the prisoner should be such as to exclude to a moral certainty every hypothesis but that of his guilt of the offense imputed to him, they must find the defendant not guilty.”

¶2A failure to give this precise charge was held reversible error in Mose v. The State, 36 Ala. 212, decided as far back as 1860; and this ruling was approved in Coleman v. State, 59 Ala. 52. In the former case, it was said: “Unless the jury are morally certain of the defendant’s guilt, it can not be said that they have no reasonable doubt of his guilt. The proposition, therefore, that the jury must be convinced to a moral certainty of the defendant’s guilt, is substantially the same with the proposition, that they must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.”

¶3The case of Blackburn v. State, 86 Ala. 595, is distinguishable from the case above cited. On the authority of these cases, we reverse the judgment in the present case.

¶4The second charge was properly refused, as being merely argumentative. — Hussey v. The State, 86 Ala. 34; Snider v. Burks, 84 Ala. 53.

¶5The remaining question, arising on the action of the court in sustaining the challenge of the State to the juror Dreaden, will not arise on another trial, in all probability, and need not be considered.

¶6The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. The defendant, in the meanwhile, will be retained in custody until discharged by due course of law.

/88/ala/188 · .json · Public domain