Gray v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Gray v. State

75 So. 331, 200 Ala. 19, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 272

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 19, 1917

Docket4 Div. 675.

StatusPublished

This text of 75 So. 331 (Gray 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

Gray v. State, 75 So. 331, 200 Ala. 19, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 272 (Ala. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

Appellant was convicted of murder.

[1, 2] Mattie Walker testified for the state. She was subject to impeachment in a proper way; but her lack of chastity could not be singled out for that purpose. Swint v. State, 154 Ala. 46, 45 South. 901. Nor could her relations with the deceased, if that was relied upon to show bias against defendant, be shown by the extrajudicial statements of a third person.

[3] Appellant seems to complain that he was not allowed to have the testimony of the witness Teal as to the reputation of deceased for peace and quiet. Appellant had just that, as the record shows. It is true that the .witness, when first interrogated as to the reputation of deceased, said that he — witness *20 was an officer — hacl arrested deceased two or three times; but this answer was not responsive to the question, was incompetent (Swint v. State, supra), and was properly excluded on the state’s motion. Afterwards the witness answered appellant’s question in a proper way.

Learned counsel do not seriously argue the proposition that there was any error in the admission of the dying declaration of the deceased. Proof of the .declaration was properly admitted.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. X, and McCLELLAN and GARDNER, JX, concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

Appellant was convicted of murder.

[1, 2] Mattie Walker testified for the state. She was subject to impeachment in a proper way; but her lack of chastity could not be singled out for that purpose. Swint v. State, 154 Ala. 46, 45 South. 901. Nor could her relations with the deceased, if that was relied upon to show bias against defendant, be shown by the extrajudicial statements of a third person.

[3] Appellant seems to complain that he was not allowed to have the testimony of the witness Teal as to the reputation of deceased for peace and quiet. Appellant had just that, as the record shows. It is true that the .witness, when first interrogated as to the reputation of deceased, said that he — witness *20 was an officer — hacl arrested deceased two or three times; but this answer was not responsive to the question, was incompetent (Swint v. State, supra), and was properly excluded on the state’s motion. Afterwards the witness answered appellant’s question in a proper way.

Learned counsel do not seriously argue the proposition that there was any error in the admission of the dying declaration of the deceased. Proof of the .declaration was properly admitted.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. X, and McCLELLAN and GARDNER, JX, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 So. 331, 200 Ala. 19, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-state-ala-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack