Broadway v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Broadway v. State

96 So. 649, 19 Ala. App. 242, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 113

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 15, 1923

Docket8 Div. 965.

StatusPublished

This text of 96 So. 649 (Broadway 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

Broadway v. State, 96 So. 649, 19 Ala. App. 242, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 113 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

*243 FOSTER, J.

The indictment in the first count charged the defendant with distilling and in the second count, with having in his possession a still, etc., to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors or beverages. The only questions reserved were objections to two questions asked by the state’s counsel on cross-examination of the defendant as a witness. The first question related to the sale of whisky by the defendant about which he had testified on his direct examination. He could not have been convicted under this indictment for selling whis-ky. But having himself put the fact Of the sale in evidence, he cannot complain that the trial court allowed the state’s counsel to interrogate him about it on cross-examination.

It is the policy of the law to allow great latitude on cross-examination of a witness “for the purpose of testing his character for credibility, his memory, his means of knowledge, or his accuracy.” Amos v. State, 96 Ala. 120, 11 South. 424.

The other question was not answered, and the exception reserved presents nothing for review. ■

We find no error in the record, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

*243 FOSTER, J.

The indictment in the first count charged the defendant with distilling and in the second count, with having in his possession a still, etc., to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors or beverages. The only questions reserved were objections to two questions asked by the state’s counsel on cross-examination of the defendant as a witness. The first question related to the sale of whisky by the defendant about which he had testified on his direct examination. He could not have been convicted under this indictment for selling whis-ky. But having himself put the fact Of the sale in evidence, he cannot complain that the trial court allowed the state’s counsel to interrogate him about it on cross-examination.

It is the policy of the law to allow great latitude on cross-examination of a witness “for the purpose of testing his character for credibility, his memory, his means of knowledge, or his accuracy.” Amos v. State, 96 Ala. 120, 11 South. 424.

The other question was not answered, and the exception reserved presents nothing for review. ■

We find no error in the record, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 So. 649, 19 Ala. App. 242, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broadway-v-state-alactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack