Daniell v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Daniell v. State

73 So. 2d 375, 261 Ala. 145, 1954 Ala. LEXIS 404

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 17, 1954

Docket8 Div. 768

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 73 So. 2d 375 (Daniell 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

Daniell v. State, 73 So. 2d 375, 261 Ala. 145, 1954 Ala. LEXIS 404 (Ala. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

GOODWYN, Justice.

Petition of Ray Daniell for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of Daniell v. State, 37 Ala.App. 559, 73 So.2d 370. Our conclusion is that the writ is due to be denied.

In denying the writ we do not wish to be understood as approving the rule, discussed by the Court of Appeals, investing trial courts with discretion in admitting lay opinion evidence. Our view is that the testimony of witnesses Maze and Rowe as to the appearance of prosecutrix when they first saw her on the night in question was, in each instance, a “collective statement” or “shorthand rendering” of fact and, as such, was admissible. McPherson v. Martin, 234 Ala. 244, 247, 174 So 791; Pollard v. Rogers, 234 Ala. 92, 97-101, 173 So. 881; Rowe v. Alabama Power Co., 232 Ala. 257, 259, 167 So. 324; Roan v. State, 225 Ala. 428, 433, 143 So. 454; Sullivan v. State, 102 Ala. 135, 142, 15 So. 264, 48 Am. St.Rep. 22; Watkins v. State, 89 Ala. 82, 88, 8 So. 134; Perry v. State, 87 Ala. 30, 33, 6 So. 425; Carney v. State, 79 Ala. 14, 18; Raisler v. Springer, 38 Ala. 703, 705, 82 Am.Dec. 736.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and MERRILL, JJ., concur.

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

GOODWYN, Justice.

Petition of Ray Daniell for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of Daniell v. State, 37 Ala.App. 559, 73 So.2d 370. Our conclusion is that the writ is due to be denied.

In denying the writ we do not wish to be understood as approving the rule, discussed by the Court of Appeals, investing trial courts with discretion in admitting lay opinion evidence. Our view is that the testimony of witnesses Maze and Rowe as to the appearance of prosecutrix when they first saw her on the night in question was, in each instance, a “collective statement” or “shorthand rendering” of fact and, as such, was admissible. McPherson v. Martin, 234 Ala. 244, 247, 174 So 791; Pollard v. Rogers, 234 Ala. 92, 97-101, 173 So. 881; Rowe v. Alabama Power Co., 232 Ala. 257, 259, 167 So. 324; Roan v. State, 225 Ala. 428, 433, 143 So. 454; Sullivan v. State, 102 Ala. 135, 142, 15 So. 264, 48 Am. St.Rep. 22; Watkins v. State, 89 Ala. 82, 88, 8 So. 134; Perry v. State, 87 Ala. 30, 33, 6 So. 425; Carney v. State, 79 Ala. 14, 18; Raisler v. Springer, 38 Ala. 703, 705, 82 Am.Dec. 736.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and MERRILL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 So. 2d 375, 261 Ala. 145, 1954 Ala. LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniell-v-state-ala-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack