Herbert v. State

78 So. 386, 201 Ala. 480, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 34
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided March 23, 1918·No. 8 Div. 78.·Published·Cited by 19 cases

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

This court is of the opinion that the question raised by petitioner’s (appellant’s) objection to evidence of acts between him and the prosecutrix done after the alleged seduction cannot be distinguished on any substantial grounds from the like question raised in Pope v. State, 137 Ala. 56, 34 South. 840, and in the cases cited on the brief for appellant to which the court in that case referred. The settled law of this state is that such subsequent acts cannot, in the face of apt objection, be proved against the defendant in a seduction case. The judgment of the Court of Appeals holding to the contrary in effect is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings in conformity herewith.

All the Justices concur.

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

Herbert v. State, 78 So. 386, 201 Ala. 480, 1918 Ala. LEXIS 34 (Ala. 1918).

78 So. 386 (Herbert v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hubby v. United States
150 F.2d 165 (Fifth Circuit, 1945)
Harrison v. State
178 So. 454 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1937)
Thompson v. State
166 So. 440 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1936)
Parker v. State
152 So. 610 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1934)
Durell v. State
124 So. 665 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1929)
Phillips v. Ashworth
124 So. 519 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Shaddix v. State
123 So. 277 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1929)
Clark v. State
110 So. 562 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1926)
Mitchell v. State
101 So. 168 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)
Thomas v. State
101 So. 93 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)
Owens v. State
99 So. 774 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)
Maske v. State
95 So. 204 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1923)
Whatley v. State
97 So. 121 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1922)
Davis v. State
93 So. 269 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1922)
Dill v. State
89 So. 866 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1921)
Chambers v. State
84 So. 638 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1919)