Opinion
8 Div. 323.
October 11, 1945.
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Petition of the State, by its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in the case of Beavers v. State, 23 So.2d 602, wherein a judgment of conviction for manslaughter in the first degree was reversed.
Writ granted; reversed and remanded to Court of Appeals.
Defendant's refusal charge 7 is as follows: "7. The Court charges the jury that proof of good character, if proved to your reasonable satisfaction, may be sufficient to authorize you to acquit the defendant when taken in connection with all the other testimony."
Wm. N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and John O. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the petition.
Charge 7 is bad and has been expressly condemned. Bowen v. State, 217 Ala. 574, 117 So. 204; Gulledge v. State, 232 Ala. 209, 167 So. 252; Daniels v. State, 243 Ala. 675, 11 So.2d 756. See Ducett v. State, 186 Ala. 34, 65 So. 351.
Proctor Snodgrass, of Scottsboro, opposed.
Charge 7 is a good charge and should have been given. Maddox v. State, 20 Ala. App. 497, 103 So. 99; Newsom v. State, 107 Ala. 133, 18 So. 206; Taylor v. State, 149 Ala. 32, 33, 42 So. 996; McHan v. State, 20 Ala. App. 117, 101 So. 81; Goldsmith v. State, 105 Ala. 8, 16 So. 933; Miller v. State, 107 Ala. 40, 19 So. 37; Bryant v. State, 116 Ala. 445, 446, 23 So. 40; De Wyre v. State, 190 Ala. 1, 67 So. 577.
Charges similar to refused charge No. 7, for which the Court of Appeals ordered a reversal of the judgment of conviction, have been considered in numerous cases by this Court. It is the same as charge No. 24 in Bowen v. State, 217 Ala. 574, 577, 117 So. 204; and charge No. 14 in Gulledge v. State, 232 Ala. 209, 167 So. 252; and as charge No. 15 in Daniels v. State, 243 Ala. 675, 11 So.2d 756. See, also, Taylor v. State, 149 Ala. 32, 42 So. 996; Newsom v. State, 107 Ala. 133, 18 So. 206; Bryant v. State; 116 Ala. 445, 23 So. 40; Watts v. State, 177 Ala. 24, 59 So. 270.
But in the case of Ducett v. State, 186 Ala. 34, 65 So. 351, the Court refers to the difficulty of the jury in carefully balancing the various statements of the principle, and that such niceties should be exercised in favor of the ruling of the trial court. Our later cases cited above decline to reverse for the refusal of such charges without drawing close distinctions in the language used, on the theory that they are misleading and tend to confuse the jury. We are not willing to depart from that theory at this time.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded to that court.
Reversed and remanded.
GARDNER, C. J., and BROWN, LIVINGSTON, STAKELY and SIMPSON, JJ., concur.