Cutcliff v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cutcliff v. State

95 So. 338, 19 Ala. App. 107, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 29

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 30, 1923

Docket6 Div. 68.

StatusPublished

This text of 95 So. 338 (Cutcliff 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

Cutcliff v. State, 95 So. 338, 19 Ala. App. 107, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 29 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

Tbe evidence for tbe state tended to prove tbe state’s case and tbe evidence for defendant tended to establish defendant’s innocence. On the trial, while defendant was being examined as a witness in bis own behalf, defendant offered to prove that tbe- defendant went down to tbe detectives’ office in tbe city of Birmingham; after receiving information or intimation that he was suspected or accused of having stolen tbe car, and that he went to tbe detectives’ office with tbe idea of informing tbe detectives’ office bow be got this car and from whom. Tbe court sustained objection to tbis testimony, which was proper. No effort bad been made to prove flight, and self-serving declarations are inadmissible generally. However, after tbe objection bad been sustained, defendant was permitted to testify to tbe facts sought to have been proven, except to the undisclosed motive. The exception is without merit.

There is no error in the record ’ and the judgment is affirmed. ' .

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

Tbe evidence for tbe state tended to prove tbe state’s case and tbe evidence for defendant tended to establish defendant’s innocence. On the trial, while defendant was being examined as a witness in bis own behalf, defendant offered to prove that tbe- defendant went down to tbe detectives’ office in tbe city of Birmingham; after receiving information or intimation that he was suspected or accused of having stolen tbe car, and that he went to tbe detectives’ office with tbe idea of informing tbe detectives’ office bow be got this car and from whom. Tbe court sustained objection to tbis testimony, which was proper. No effort bad been made to prove flight, and self-serving declarations are inadmissible generally. However, after tbe objection bad been sustained, defendant was permitted to testify to tbe facts sought to have been proven, except to the undisclosed motive. The exception is without merit.

There is no error in the record ’ and the judgment is affirmed. ' .

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 So. 338, 19 Ala. App. 107, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cutcliff-v-state-alactapp-1923.