
    White v. The State.
    
      Bastardy.
    
    (Decided Jan. 19th, 1911.
    54 South. 430.)
    1. Bastardy; Evidence; Sufficiency. — The burden of proof is on the prosecution to reasonably satisfy the jury that the defendant in a bastardy proceeding is guilty.
    2. Charge of Court; Covered by Those Owen. — The court is not required to give instruction already substantially given in writing.
    Appeal from Montgomery City Court.
    Heard, before Hon. Armstead Brown.
    Jim White was convicted of bastardy and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    No counsel marked for appellant.
    Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the State.
    In bastardy proceedings it is sufficient to show the guilt of the accused to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury. — JaisIo v. The State, 129 Ala. 1; Miller v. The State, 110 Ala. 69; 5 Cyc. 664.
   DOWDELL, C. J.

The measure of proof necessary to warrant a conviction in a prosecution for bastardy is that the evidence must reasonably satisfy the jury of the guilt of the defendant. To this extent the burden of proof is on the prosecution.—Lusk v. State, 129 Ala. 1; 30 South. 33; Miller v. State, 110 Ala. 69, 20 South. 392. The trial court, upon the written request of the defendant, so charged the jury.

If the charge which was refused to the defendant, and which contained the statement, viz., “and unless the jury believe the evidence so strongly as to be convinced of the truth of the statements in the complaint to a reasonable, honest certainty,” etc., meant more than that the jury should be reasonably satisfied, it was an erroneous statement of the law, and was properly refused; and, on the other hand, if it did not, then it finds substantial duplication in the charge given for the defendant, and for that reason there was no error in its refusal.

This being the only question presented, and finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, Mayfield, and Sayre, JJ., concur.  