Brown v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Brown v. State

90 So. 54, 18 Ala. App. 91, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 77

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 5, 1921

Docket8 Div. 827.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 90 So. 54 (Brown 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

Brown v. State, 90 So. 54, 18 Ala. App. 91, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 77 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

On the trial of this case in the court below the state introduced only one witness, T. W. McCuthra, and upon the testimony of this witness relied for a conviction. On cross-examination of this witness the court would not allow the defendant to prove that the witness had a pecuniary interest in' the result of the trial and in the conviction of this defendant. This ruling was error and in direct conflict with the general rule which provides that on cross-examination of a witness any fact may be elicited which tends to show bias or partiality; the purpose of the rule being that, if the witness is interested in the result of the trial, the jury may weigh his- testimony in the light of such interest. It matters not if the interest so shown is based upon hatred or friendship, or upon financial or other reasons. John Tapscott v. State, 88 South. 376, 1 and cases cited. See, also, John Byrd v. State, 17 Ala. App. 301, 84 South. 777.

Reversed and remanded.

1

Ante, p. 67.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

On the trial of this case in the court below the state introduced only one witness, T. W. McCuthra, and upon the testimony of this witness relied for a conviction. On cross-examination of this witness the court would not allow the defendant to prove that the witness had a pecuniary interest in' the result of the trial and in the conviction of this defendant. This ruling was error and in direct conflict with the general rule which provides that on cross-examination of a witness any fact may be elicited which tends to show bias or partiality; the purpose of the rule being that, if the witness is interested in the result of the trial, the jury may weigh his- testimony in the light of such interest. It matters not if the interest so shown is based upon hatred or friendship, or upon financial or other reasons. John Tapscott v. State, 88 South. 376, 1 and cases cited. See, also, John Byrd v. State, 17 Ala. App. 301, 84 South. 777.

Reversed and remanded.

1

Ante, p. 67.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 So. 54, 18 Ala. App. 91, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-state-alactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack