Humbree v. The State

Humbree v. The State. Carrying a Concealed Weapon. 1. Improper charge. — A charge asked, in a criminal case, which claims an acquittal if the jury entertain “ any doubt ” as to a material fact, is properly refused, since only a reasonable doubt justifies an acquittal. Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. Tried before the Hon. John B. Tally. The appellant was tried and convicted on a charge of carrying a concealed pistol. The prosecution was commenced July 15, 1885. On the trial the defendant, at the conclusion of the evidence on both sides, asked the following charge, which the court refused, and be excepted ; “ If there is any doubt as to whether the time referred (to) was within twelve months before the 15th of July, 1885, then the jury should find the defendant not guilty.” T. N. McClellan, Attorney-General, for the State. [MAJORITY — CLOPTON, J.] CLOPTON, J. — The only exception raised by the record is the refusal of the court to instruct the jury, at the instance of defendant, that if there is any doubt whether the offense .was committed within twelve months before the commencement of tlie prosecution, they must acquit. A doubt which demands an acquittal must be a reasonable doubt, actual and substantial, arising from the insufficiency of the evidence to produce an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge. A possible or speculative doubt is not sufficient. The charge is misleading by reason of failing to distinguish the degrees of doubt, and was properly refused. Farrish v. State, 68 Ala. 164; McKleroy v. State, 77 Ala. 95. Affirmed.