Brown v. State

137 Ala. 99
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1902·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

TY'SON, J.

The subsequent cross-examination hv defendant of the witness Barker, under the circumstances shown by the record, cured whatever errors may have theretofore been committed by the court to his prejudice. It is fair to presume that the defendant’s failure to relay the predicate for impeachment of the witness by showing the conversation with him at the door of the court house, was attributable either to the fact, that if the witness denied having such a conversation he could not have been contradicted or that it was the same conversation in which he made the statement, to, Mr. Hill, which was admitted by him to he true.

There is no error in the record.

Affirmed.

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

Brown v. State, 137 Ala. 99 (Ala. 1902).

137 Ala. 99 (Brown v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lumpkin v. State
97 So. 171 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1923)