Fuller v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Fuller v. State

119 So. 594, 22 Ala. App. 652, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 6

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 1929

Docket5 Div. 730.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 119 So. 594 (Fuller 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

Fuller v. State, 119 So. 594, 22 Ala. App. 652, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 6 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

*653 RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of possessing a still, etc., to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors.

The evidence on behalf of the state was clear, direct, and positive, all to the effect that appellant-was guilty as charged. That on behalf of the defendant (appellant) was Equally positive, to the effect that he was innocent of the charge. The issue was simple.

But it is too well settled to need the citation of authority that a defendant on trial for such an offense, and under such circumstances, has the right to introduce evidence of his good character previous to the time of the occurrence for which he is being tried.

In this case the appellant asked his witness McDonald, this question: “Do you know, or think you know his (Hilliard Fuller’s) general, character in the community in which he .resides, before he was arrested charged with operating this still?” The state’s objection was sustained, and exception duly reserved. In this ruling the trial court erred, to the prejudice of appellant. White v. State, 114 Ala. 10, 22 So. 111; Mancil v. State, 21 Ala. App. 588, 110 So. 320. And this is true even though appellant failed to inform the court of what he expected witness’ answer to be, or that he expected to show, with the answer as a basis, that said general character was good. Gen. Acts Ala. 1927, p. 636.

No other questions seem worthy of consideration.

Reversed and remanded.

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

*653 RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of possessing a still, etc., to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors.

The evidence on behalf of the state was clear, direct, and positive, all to the effect that appellant-was guilty as charged. That on behalf of the defendant (appellant) was Equally positive, to the effect that he was innocent of the charge. The issue was simple.

But it is too well settled to need the citation of authority that a defendant on trial for such an offense, and under such circumstances, has the right to introduce evidence of his good character previous to the time of the occurrence for which he is being tried.

In this case the appellant asked his witness McDonald, this question: “Do you know, or think you know his (Hilliard Fuller’s) general, character in the community in which he .resides, before he was arrested charged with operating this still?” The state’s objection was sustained, and exception duly reserved. In this ruling the trial court erred, to the prejudice of appellant. White v. State, 114 Ala. 10, 22 So. 111; Mancil v. State, 21 Ala. App. 588, 110 So. 320. And this is true even though appellant failed to inform the court of what he expected witness’ answer to be, or that he expected to show, with the answer as a basis, that said general character was good. Gen. Acts Ala. 1927, p. 636.

No other questions seem worthy of consideration.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 So. 594, 22 Ala. App. 652, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-state-alactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack