From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baker v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Nov 15, 1923
97 So. 903 (Ala. 1923)


7 Div. 433.

November 15, 1923.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Charge 2, refused to defendant, was technically bad for failure to hypothesize a probability of innocence founded on the evidence. Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179; Davis v. State, 188 Ala. 59, 66 So. 67. The facts of other offenses were relevant, and it was immaterial whether they occurred before or after the one under investigation. Jones on Evi. (2d Ed.) 166; Mayer v. People, 80 N.Y. 364; 3 Greene on Evi. § 15; Strong v. State, 86 Ind. 208, 44 Am. Rep. 292.

Tate Logan, of Anniston, opposed.

No brief reached the Reporter.

By this petition the state seeks to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in Baker v. State, 97 So. 901, only in two particulars. The first relates to the ruling that charge 2, refused to defendant, should have been given. The Court of Appeals is sustained by the case of Brown v. State, 118 Ala. 111, 23 So. 81, approving charge 6.

It may be seriously questioned, however, that the refusal of such a charge would constitute reversible error, in view of the subsequent decisions of this court condemning charges of similar character as technically bad for not resting the hypothesis of innocence upon the evidence in the case. Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179, commenting upon refused charge 4; Davis v. State, 188 Ala. 59, 66 So. 67. See, also, Minor v. State, 15 Ala. App. 556, 74 So. 98.

We therefore prefer to rest denial of the writ upon the second ruling here complained of, relating to the inadmissibility of evidence as to acts of the defendant a week or more subsequent to the alleged commission of the offense for which he was being prosecuted. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this evidence did not come within any of the exceptions or limitations to the general rule, and that the holding is sustained by the authorities cited by the Court of Appeals — particularly Ingram v. State, 39 Ala. 247, 84 Am. Dec. 782.

The writ will be denied.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.

Summaries of

Baker v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Nov 15, 1923
97 So. 903 (Ala. 1923)
Case details for

Baker v. State

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte STATE ex rel. ATTY. GEN. BAKER v. STATE

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Nov 15, 1923


97 So. 903 (Ala. 1923)
210 Ala. 320

Citing Cases

Williamson v. State

Charges of a similar character have been criticized by the Supreme Court as not predicating the hypothesis of…

Rountree v. State

Hale v. State, 122 Ala. 85, 26 So. 236; Harris v. State, 96 Ala. 24, 11 So. 255. With reference to the…