Hicks v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hicks v. State

59 So. 231, 4 Ala. App. 120, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 263

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 19, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 59 So. 231 (Hicks 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

Hicks v. State, 59 So. 231, 4 Ala. App. 120, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 263 (Ala. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, J.

The defendant was tried and convicted of carrying a pistol concealed about his person. J. C. Worley, one of the principal witnesses against the defendant, testified to facts showing the guilt of the accused. The defendant examined as a witness in his be[122]*122half one Ben Adams, and undertook to show by Adams the state of feeling existing between the witness J. C. Worley and the defendant. The solicitor interposed objections, and the court sustained the state’s objection and refused to allow the' defendant to prove by the witness the state- of feeling existing between Worley and the defendant. In this the court was in error. The defendant had a right to prove the state of feeling for the purpose of showing bias or ill will.—Henry v. State, 79 Ala. 42; McHugh v. State, 31 Ala. 317; Jones v. State, 76 Ala. 8; Polk v. State, 62 Ala. 237; Fincher v. State, 58 Ala. 215; Lodge v. State, 122 Ala. 97, 26 South. 210, 82 Am. St. Rep. 23.

The other rulings on the evidence are free from error, and the two charges requested by the defendant were properly refused; but for the error pointed out the case must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PELHAM, J.

The defendant was tried and convicted of carrying a pistol concealed about his person. J. C. Worley, one of the principal witnesses against the defendant, testified to facts showing the guilt of the accused. The defendant examined as a witness in his be[122]*122half one Ben Adams, and undertook to show by Adams the state of feeling existing between the witness J. C. Worley and the defendant. The solicitor interposed objections, and the court sustained the state’s objection and refused to allow the' defendant to prove by the witness the state- of feeling existing between Worley and the defendant. In this the court was in error. The defendant had a right to prove the state of feeling for the purpose of showing bias or ill will.—Henry v. State, 79 Ala. 42; McHugh v. State, 31 Ala. 317; Jones v. State, 76 Ala. 8; Polk v. State, 62 Ala. 237; Fincher v. State, 58 Ala. 215; Lodge v. State, 122 Ala. 97, 26 South. 210, 82 Am. St. Rep. 23.

The other rulings on the evidence are free from error, and the two charges requested by the defendant were properly refused; but for the error pointed out the case must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 So. 231, 4 Ala. App. 120, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-state-alactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack