Gissendanner v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Gissendanner v. State

89 So. 835, 18 Ala. App. 199, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 167

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 21, 1921

Docket4 Div. 667.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 89 So. 835 (Gissendanner 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

Gissendanner v. State, 89 So. 835, 18 Ala. App. 199, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 167 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

On the trial of the case the wife of the deceased, over the timely objection of defendant, was permitted to testify that shortly before bis death deceased had said “Bricie [meaning defendant] had robbed him.” This testimony was not admissible for two reasons: First, no predicate had been laid for a dying declaration; Second, the statement was a conclusion. Pilcher v. State, 16 Ala. App. 237, 77 South. 75; Pressley v. State, 166 Ala. 17, 52 South. 337; Reaves v. State, 158 Ala. 5, 48 South. 373; Oliver v. State, 17 Ala. 587; Autrey v. State, 190 Ala. 10, 67 South. 237. Further, this evidence is not shown to be material.

The only effect of this evidence was to prejudice the defendant’s case in the minds of the jury.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is-remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMFORD, J.

On the trial of the case the wife of the deceased, over the timely objection of defendant, was permitted to testify that shortly before bis death deceased had said “Bricie [meaning defendant] had robbed him.” This testimony was not admissible for two reasons: First, no predicate had been laid for a dying declaration; Second, the statement was a conclusion. Pilcher v. State, 16 Ala. App. 237, 77 South. 75; Pressley v. State, 166 Ala. 17, 52 South. 337; Reaves v. State, 158 Ala. 5, 48 South. 373; Oliver v. State, 17 Ala. 587; Autrey v. State, 190 Ala. 10, 67 South. 237. Further, this evidence is not shown to be material.

The only effect of this evidence was to prejudice the defendant’s case in the minds of the jury.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is-remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 835, 18 Ala. App. 199, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gissendanner-v-state-alactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack