Carson v. State

128 Ala. 58
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 128 Ala. 58 (Carson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carson v. State, 128 Ala. 58 (Ala. 1900).

Opinion

DOWDELL, J.

The evidence disclosed that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the commission [60]*60of the alleged, crime. He put in issue his character for peace and quiet. The State was permitted against defendant’s objection, upon cross-examination of certain witnesses testifying in his behalf and to his good character, to asli, if they had not heard -of his getting drunk, and also, of his carrying a concealed weapon. Much latitude is allowed upon cross-examination of a witness as to character, even sometimes to the extent, within the sound discretion of the trial court, of asking questions which may call for irrelevant evidence. This for the purpose of testing the accuracy, credibility and sincerity of the witness. As to how a witness makes up his estimate of character, is a proper subject of inquiry upon cross-examination. Besides, a man while free from ithe influence of strong drink may have an excellent character as a law abiding, quiet, peaceable citizen, but otherwise When intoxicated. And certainly the carrying of concealed weapons, an offense which the law condemns, is not an element which goes to make up a good character for peace and quiet. There was no error in permitting the questions. — Goodwin v. State, 102 Ala. 87; Thompson v. State, 100 Ala. 70; Moulton v. State, 88 Ala. 116; Hussey v. State, 87 Ala. 121; DeArman v. State; 71 Ala. 351; Ingram v. State, 67 Ala. 67.

While i|t is permissible on cross-examination of a witness on character to ask such witness if he ever heard of the defendant Inning other difficulties than the one under investigation, if is not permissible to inquire into the details of such difficulty on rebuttal. — Goodwin v. State, supra; Moulton v. State, supra; Thompson v. State, supra.

We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment of the trial count must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Frazier v. State
320 So. 2d 99 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1975)
Tillman v. State
291 So. 2d 373 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1974)
Lowery v. State
286 So. 2d 62 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1973)
Mullins v. State
19 So. 2d 845 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1944)
Sorrell v. Scheuer
96 So. 216 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
Marshal v. State
93 So. 236 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1922)
Cochran v. State
92 So. 524 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1922)
Jimmerson v. State
86 So. 153 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1920)
State v. Presta
183 P. 112 (Washington Supreme Court, 1919)
Vaughan v. State
78 So. 378 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Smith v. State
75 So. 192 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1917)
Johnson v. State
74 So. 366 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
Rogers v. State
72 So. 689 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1916)
Sexton v. State
69 So. 341 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Andrews v. State
48 So. 858 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)
Ross v. State
139 Ala. 144 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 Ala. 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carson-v-state-ala-1900.