Bynum v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Bynum v. State

526 So. 2d 658, 1988 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 25, 1988 WL 26735

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedMarch 8, 1988

Docket7 Div. 938

StatusPublished

This text of 526 So. 2d 658 (Bynum v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bynum v. State, 526 So. 2d 658, 1988 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 25, 1988 WL 26735 (Ala. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

BOWEN, Presiding Judge.

Edward Michael Bynum was convicted for the manslaughter of Phillip Slaton and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. On this appeal from that conviction, he argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to allow testimony about the warnings the witnesses gave him about the deceased.

[659]*659The defendant was permitted to prove the deceased’s bad general reputation for violence and a lack of peace and quiet. He was also permitted to prove that several individuals warned him about the deceased. However, he was not permitted to prove the specific contents of the warnings. Any advice or warning given the defendant by a witness was properly excluded. Parker v. State, 266 Ala. 63, 67, 94 So.2d 209 (1956); Davis v. State, 216 Ala. 475, 477, 113 So. 393 (1927). “[T]he accused is not entitled to prove that, prior to the homicide, he was warned of danger to himself at the hands of the victim or advised to take precautions to prevent harm to himself at the hands of the victim.” C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 63.01(5) (3rd ed. 1977).

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

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

BOWEN, Presiding Judge.

Edward Michael Bynum was convicted for the manslaughter of Phillip Slaton and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. On this appeal from that conviction, he argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to allow testimony about the warnings the witnesses gave him about the deceased.

[659]*659The defendant was permitted to prove the deceased’s bad general reputation for violence and a lack of peace and quiet. He was also permitted to prove that several individuals warned him about the deceased. However, he was not permitted to prove the specific contents of the warnings. Any advice or warning given the defendant by a witness was properly excluded. Parker v. State, 266 Ala. 63, 67, 94 So.2d 209 (1956); Davis v. State, 216 Ala. 475, 477, 113 So. 393 (1927). “[T]he accused is not entitled to prove that, prior to the homicide, he was warned of danger to himself at the hands of the victim or advised to take precautions to prevent harm to himself at the hands of the victim.” C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 63.01(5) (3rd ed. 1977).

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 So. 2d 658, 1988 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 25, 1988 WL 26735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bynum-v-state-alacrimapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack