Brooks v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Brooks v. State

109 So. 887, 21 Ala. App. 479, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 233

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 25, 1926

Docket4 Div. 158.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 109 So. 887 (Brooks 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

Brooks v. State, 109 So. 887, 21 Ala. App. 479, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 233 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The principal insistence of defendant is that the state failed to offer proof that the crime was committed within 12 months before the finding of the indictment. The indictment was returned September, 1924. Mindham testified as to time that “it was on Sunday, and it was one day before the September grand jury last year.” The witness was then testifying on the trial in. April, 1925. On cross-examination the witness said he thought it was in the spring of the year. This was sufficient evidence from which the jury might fix the time within the statute of limitation of one year.

It is further insisted that the court erred in permitting the solicitor to ask defendant’s witness: “How come yon to drive there?” This was cross-examination, and, under the rule of allowing broad latitude in such examinations as to motive, intention, opportunity, etc.,- of witness testifying as to material facts, we think the action of the court was free from error. The case of Newman v. State, 20 Ala. App. 271, 101 So. 508, differs from the case at bar in that there tbe question was asked on direct examination.

There' are no other questions of merit presented.

We find no error in.tbe record, and tbe judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

The principal insistence of defendant is that the state failed to offer proof that the crime was committed within 12 months before the finding of the indictment. The indictment was returned September, 1924. Mindham testified as to time that “it was on Sunday, and it was one day before the September grand jury last year.” The witness was then testifying on the trial in. April, 1925. On cross-examination the witness said he thought it was in the spring of the year. This was sufficient evidence from which the jury might fix the time within the statute of limitation of one year.

It is further insisted that the court erred in permitting the solicitor to ask defendant’s witness: “How come yon to drive there?” This was cross-examination, and, under the rule of allowing broad latitude in such examinations as to motive, intention, opportunity, etc.,- of witness testifying as to material facts, we think the action of the court was free from error. The case of Newman v. State, 20 Ala. App. 271, 101 So. 508, differs from the case at bar in that there tbe question was asked on direct examination.

There' are no other questions of merit presented.

We find no error in.tbe record, and tbe judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 887, 21 Ala. App. 479, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack