Emerson v. State
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Arnold v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1976)
- Terry v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1968)
- Dixon v. State (Ala. 1958)
- Adkins v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1956)
- Houston v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1956)
- Stover v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1953)
- Rikard v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1944)
- Alford v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1942)
- Ruffin v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1941)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The holding of the Court of Appeals that the additional instruction given the jury was free from reversible error upon a consideration of the entire charge is sustained on examination of the record.
The excerpt' quoted in the opinion was only a part of the supplemental instruction. The court proceeded at the time to reassert there should be no conviction unless satisfied of guilt from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; and further instructed, that if they so found, they need not impose a fine, but in their discretion, could leave the punishment to be fixed by the court. Code of 1923, § 5268.
That the jury was not misled is indicated by the fact that they did not assess a fine, but expressly by their verdict, left the fixing of punishment to the court.
The court having imposed hard labor for the county as a punishment for the offense, there was no error in imposing a further period of hard labor for costs. Code of 1923, § 5291.
Writ denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.