Hobbs v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Hobbs v. State

74 Ala. 39

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 15, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 74 Ala. 39 (Hobbs 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

Hobbs v. State, 74 Ala. 39 (Ala. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, J.

— We had hoped that, in Cross v. The State, 68 Ala. 476, we expressed ourselves so clearly, as not to be misunderstood. Speaking of statements' of counsel which would be available on error, we then said: “ The ■ statement must be made as of fact/ [and] the fact stated must be unsupported by any evidence.” The language objected to in this case was manifestly uttered as an inference, and that inference we can not say was unsupported by any testimony. On the contrary, we think the inference drawn from the testimony was very reasonable and natural. We have no wish to shackle discussion, or to scrutinize, narrowly and critically, inferences counsel may draw from proven facts. Trial courts would be treading on dangerous ground, were they to exercise a severe censorship over the line of argument counsel may pursue. They must not allow them to constitute themselves unsworn witnesses, and to state, as facts, matters of which there is no testimony. But we have gone no further. • On’ the contrary, we expressly said, in Gross' case, that “ every inference counsel may think arises out of the testimony,” is a legitimate subject of criticism and discussion. See Motes v. Bates, at the present term.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed.

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

STONE, J.

— We had hoped that, in Cross v. The State, 68 Ala. 476, we expressed ourselves so clearly, as not to be misunderstood. Speaking of statements' of counsel which would be available on error, we then said: “ The ■ statement must be made as of fact/ [and] the fact stated must be unsupported by any evidence.” The language objected to in this case was manifestly uttered as an inference, and that inference we can not say was unsupported by any testimony. On the contrary, we think the inference drawn from the testimony was very reasonable and natural. We have no wish to shackle discussion, or to scrutinize, narrowly and critically, inferences counsel may draw from proven facts. Trial courts would be treading on dangerous ground, were they to exercise a severe censorship over the line of argument counsel may pursue. They must not allow them to constitute themselves unsworn witnesses, and to state, as facts, matters of which there is no testimony. But we have gone no further. • On’ the contrary, we expressly said, in Gross' case, that “ every inference counsel may think arises out of the testimony,” is a legitimate subject of criticism and discussion. See Motes v. Bates, at the present term.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 Ala. 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hobbs-v-state-ala-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack