Gotcher v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Gotcher v. State

97 So. 111, 19 Ala. App. 269, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 135

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 12, 1923

Docket8 Div. 90.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 97 So. 111 (Gotcher 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

Gotcher v. State, 97 So. 111, 19 Ala. App. 269, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 135 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

*270 BRICKEN, P. X

Under an indictment charging the defendant with murder in the first degree, he was convicted of the offense of murder in the second degree and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment in the" penitentiary.

No brief has been filed in behalf of appellant, but on examination of the questions reserved by exceptions we find that the court committed reversible error in permitting state witness Dr. W. J. Calloway to testify over the objection of defendant to his opinion as to the relative positions of deceased and defendant at the time the fatal shots were fired. This is never permissible. Rigell v. State, S Ala. App. 46. 62 South. .977. This was clearly invasive of the province of the jury and a matter of which they would be quite as competent to judge as would this witness, the jury having been given a description of the wounds. In Rigell’s Case, supra, this court said:

“According to the overwhelming weight of authority, the opinions of medical experts are not admissible to show the position of an injured person at the time the wound was received, or the position of the person who inflicted it, because, as 'has been said, surgeons are not presumed to be experts in the matter of giving or receiving wounds, and the jury are equally capable of drawing proper inferences from the facts proved.”

See, also McKee v. State. 82 Ala. 32, 2 South. 451: Dumas v. State, 159 Ala. 44, 49 South. 224, 183 Am. St. Rep. 17; Roden v. State, 13 Ala. App. 105. 69 South. 366; Noble v. State, 14 Ala. App. 9, 70 South. 187; Mathis v. State, 15 Ala. App. 245, 73 South. 122.

Refused charge AA was an argument; therefore it was properly refused.

Charge R was refused to defendant without error. Koch v. State, 115 Ala. 99, 22 South. 471.

The motion for new trial is not in the bill of exceptions, but appears in the record only. It is therefore not properly presented for review. Acts 1915. p. 722.

Other questions raised upon this trial need not be considered.

The record proper Is without error, but for the error designated the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

*270 BRICKEN, P. X

Under an indictment charging the defendant with murder in the first degree, he was convicted of the offense of murder in the second degree and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment in the" penitentiary.

No brief has been filed in behalf of appellant, but on examination of the questions reserved by exceptions we find that the court committed reversible error in permitting state witness Dr. W. J. Calloway to testify over the objection of defendant to his opinion as to the relative positions of deceased and defendant at the time the fatal shots were fired. This is never permissible. Rigell v. State, S Ala. App. 46. 62 South. .977. This was clearly invasive of the province of the jury and a matter of which they would be quite as competent to judge as would this witness, the jury having been given a description of the wounds. In Rigell’s Case, supra, this court said:

“According to the overwhelming weight of authority, the opinions of medical experts are not admissible to show the position of an injured person at the time the wound was received, or the position of the person who inflicted it, because, as 'has been said, surgeons are not presumed to be experts in the matter of giving or receiving wounds, and the jury are equally capable of drawing proper inferences from the facts proved.”

See, also McKee v. State. 82 Ala. 32, 2 South. 451: Dumas v. State, 159 Ala. 44, 49 South. 224, 183 Am. St. Rep. 17; Roden v. State, 13 Ala. App. 105. 69 South. 366; Noble v. State, 14 Ala. App. 9, 70 South. 187; Mathis v. State, 15 Ala. App. 245, 73 South. 122.

Refused charge AA was an argument; therefore it was properly refused.

Charge R was refused to defendant without error. Koch v. State, 115 Ala. 99, 22 South. 471.

The motion for new trial is not in the bill of exceptions, but appears in the record only. It is therefore not properly presented for review. Acts 1915. p. 722.

Other questions raised upon this trial need not be considered.

The record proper Is without error, but for the error designated the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 So. 111, 19 Ala. App. 269, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gotcher-v-state-alactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack