Judges: ELLIS, J. —
Attorneys: J. McHenry Jones, Harvey E. Page and Terry Richardson, for Plaintiff in Error;
Cary D. Landis, Attorney General, and Roy Campbell, Assistant for the State.
Filed: Feb. 12, 1934
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This cause, having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record and of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same i
Summary: This cause, having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record and of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is..
More
I think the Court erred in refusing to give requested charge No. 10, asked for by defendant.
My conception of the law is that a defendant as well as the state may have a theory consistent with the evidence upon which charges may be predicated to be considered by the jury in weighing the evidence for and against the defendant's theory of the case. The fact that evidence preponderates against the defendant's theory is no ground for refusing an applicable charge on a matter of law.
BUFORD, J., concurs.
