Askew v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Askew v. State

66 So. 852, 11 Ala. App. 293, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 63

DecidedNovember 26, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 66 So. 852 (Askew v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Askew v. State, 66 So. 852, 11 Ala. App. 293, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 63 (Ala. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, J.

The complaint filed by state’s counsel, on which the defendant was tried in the circuit court was amendable “before a jury was impaneled for the trial of the case,” and the court committed no error in allowing the amendments. — Tatum v. State, 66 Ala. 465; Perry v. State, 78 Ala. 22; Bates v. State, 152 Ala. 80, 44 South. 695.

The state’s witness was not a party to the bill of exceptions prepared on a former trial of the case, and the recitals of that instrument with respect to his testimony on that trial were not competent to be introduced on a subsequent trial for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the witness in the absence of any showing or proof of the correctness of the statements as to the testimony of the witness set forth in the bill of exceptions. The court properly refused to permit the introduction of the bill of exceptions on the former trial or any part of it, for this purpose.

The rulings of the court made' during the cross-examination of the state’s witness, Joe Carroll, by defendant’s counsel, do not show such an abuse of the discretion reposed in the trial court with respect to such matters as would authorize a reversal of the judgment.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PELHAM, J.

The complaint filed by state’s counsel, on which the defendant was tried in the circuit court was amendable “before a jury was impaneled for the trial of the case,” and the court committed no error in allowing the amendments. — Tatum v. State, 66 Ala. 465; Perry v. State, 78 Ala. 22; Bates v. State, 152 Ala. 80, 44 South. 695.

The state’s witness was not a party to the bill of exceptions prepared on a former trial of the case, and the recitals of that instrument with respect to his testimony on that trial were not competent to be introduced on a subsequent trial for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the witness in the absence of any showing or proof of the correctness of the statements as to the testimony of the witness set forth in the bill of exceptions. The court properly refused to permit the introduction of the bill of exceptions on the former trial or any part of it, for this purpose.

The rulings of the court made' during the cross-examination of the state’s witness, Joe Carroll, by defendant’s counsel, do not show such an abuse of the discretion reposed in the trial court with respect to such matters as would authorize a reversal of the judgment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 So. 852, 11 Ala. App. 293, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/askew-v-state-alactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack