Blythe v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Blythe v. State

131 So. 457, 24 Ala. App. 142, 1930 Ala. App. LEXIS 296

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 16, 1930

Docket1 Div. 962.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 131 So. 457 (Blythe 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

Blythe v. State, 131 So. 457, 24 Ala. App. 142, 1930 Ala. App. LEXIS 296 (Ala. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMPORD, J.

The state offered as a witness Mackie White, by whom the state sought to prove a confession claimed to have been made by defendant to the witness at the time of the arrest. As a part of the predicate laid to this witness, preliminary to proof of the confession, the state was allowed, over the objection and exception of defendant, to ask, “What he said there, did he say freely and voluntarily?” to which the witness answered, “Yes.” Motion to exclude was overruled and exception reserved. The objection to the above question should have been sustained, and the motion to exclude the answer should have been granted. It is not permissible to allow a witness to state in this manner that a confession was freely and voluntarily made. This is a conclusion and a substitution of the opinion of the witness for that of the court. Wilson v. State, 20 Ala. App. 137, 101 So. 417; Craven v. State, 22 Ala. App. 39, 111 So. 767; 7 So. Dig. Crim. Law, &wkey;448(12).

Other questions will probably not arise on another trial.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMPORD, J.

The state offered as a witness Mackie White, by whom the state sought to prove a confession claimed to have been made by defendant to the witness at the time of the arrest. As a part of the predicate laid to this witness, preliminary to proof of the confession, the state was allowed, over the objection and exception of defendant, to ask, “What he said there, did he say freely and voluntarily?” to which the witness answered, “Yes.” Motion to exclude was overruled and exception reserved. The objection to the above question should have been sustained, and the motion to exclude the answer should have been granted. It is not permissible to allow a witness to state in this manner that a confession was freely and voluntarily made. This is a conclusion and a substitution of the opinion of the witness for that of the court. Wilson v. State, 20 Ala. App. 137, 101 So. 417; Craven v. State, 22 Ala. App. 39, 111 So. 767; 7 So. Dig. Crim. Law, &wkey;448(12).

Other questions will probably not arise on another trial.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 So. 457, 24 Ala. App. 142, 1930 Ala. App. LEXIS 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blythe-v-state-alactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack