 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fitch v. State8/31/2001
ory Opinion 97-97, which Fitch cites as authority for requested jury charges no. 17, no. 18, and no. 19, was not relevant to Fitch's case. Thus, these instructions were not appropriate.
Additionally, any error in refusing the requested charges would be harmless error and is also moot, because Fitch was found not guilty of violating 41-16-60, Ala. Code 1975, voting to award a contract in which he had a personal financial gain.
The trial court did not commit error by its refusal to give the requested charges.
V-C.
Fitch argues that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to give his requested charge, no. 20, concerning the Alabama competitive bid law. Fitch requested the following charge. "Defendant's Requested Jury Charge No. 20
"I instruct you that the Alabama Competitive Bid Law provides that: `In the event only one bidder responds to the invitation to bid, the awarding authority may reject the bid and negotiate the purchase or contract, providing the negotiated price is lower than the bid price.' The term one bidder means one responsible and qualified bidder.
"Alabama Code, § 41-16-50
"Ericsson GE v. Motorola, 657 So. 2d 857 (Ala. 1995); White v. McDonald Ford Tractor, Co., 287 Ala. 77, 248 So. 2d 121 (1971)." C.R. 190.
Fitch argues that the instruction was warranted for two reasons. First, Fitch says, the instruction was proper because the State asserted that Fitch used his official office for personal gain by voting on the landfill contract, which under the facts of this case was permitted because the Alabama competitive bid law specifically allows a county commission to negotiate and award a contract to any responsible and qualified bidder, so long as the contract price is lower than the bids. Second, according to Fitch, the requested instruction was due to be given because Fitch was charged with violating the competitive bid law.
Even if the refusal to give the instruction was error, it was harmless error and is now moot, because Fitch was found not guilty of willfully voting to award a contract to Perma Corporation while being financially interested in awarding the contract, a violation of §41-16-60, Ala. Code 1975, the competitive bid law.
V-D.
Fitch argues that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to give his requested charges no. 21 and no. 24 concerning theft of property. Fitch requested the following charges be given to the jury.
"Defendant's Requested Jury Charge 21
"I charge you, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, that to sustain the charge of theft of property in the first degree in this case, the State by the evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the offense:
"1. That Defendant, Jerry Fitch, knowingly obtained, by deception, control over property of Pickens County, Alabama.
"2. That he did so with intent to deprive the said owner of its property; and
"3. That the property was of value exceeding $1,000.00;
"4. That Defendant did not act in the honest belief that he had a claim to the property taken which he was entitled to assert in the manner which forms the basis for the charge against him and, if there is a reasonable doubt from a consideration of all the evidence that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the offense, then you must find the Defendant not guilty. "Alabama Code § 13A-8-12. "Wood v. State, 564 So. 2d 860, 862-63 (Ala. 1990)." C.R. 191.
"Defendant's Requested Jury Charge No. 24
"I instruct you that in or
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|