Hope v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hope v. State

109 So. 763, 21 Ala. App. 513, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 260

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1926

Docket7 Div. 174.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 So. 763 (Hope 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

Hope v. State, 109 So. 763, 21 Ala. App. 513, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 260 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of distilling and possessing a still. He attempted to prove an alibi. The evidence was in sharp conflict, and hence presented a question for the jury.

On the cross-examination of defendant’s witness Winslett, the solicitor propounded the question, “Xou were caught in Talladega county yourself about three months ago for making liquor ?” The defendant objected, and the court sustained the objection. The defendant moved for a mistrial on account of the question, which motion was overruled. We think that tne court did all that could be required of it when it sustained the objection to the question. The mere asking of the question was not so vicious as to poison the minds of the jury. A similar procedure was followed, upon the cross-examination of defendant’s witness Honeycutt, and what we have said will dispose of that matter.

While it was properly not permissible for the state to interrogate defendant about a prior transaction with the law in the matter of violating the prohibition statutes, yet, where the answer of the defendant negatives the imputation — in short, is favorable to himself — the error is rendered innocuous. Prescott v. State, 20 Ala. App. 466, 103 So. 75.

We have examined the entire record without finding error prejudicial to defendant’s rights. Other rulings presented by- the record are so clearly without error that we deem it unnecessary to give them separate treatment.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of distilling and possessing a still. He attempted to prove an alibi. The evidence was in sharp conflict, and hence presented a question for the jury.

On the cross-examination of defendant’s witness Winslett, the solicitor propounded the question, “Xou were caught in Talladega county yourself about three months ago for making liquor ?” The defendant objected, and the court sustained the objection. The defendant moved for a mistrial on account of the question, which motion was overruled. We think that tne court did all that could be required of it when it sustained the objection to the question. The mere asking of the question was not so vicious as to poison the minds of the jury. A similar procedure was followed, upon the cross-examination of defendant’s witness Honeycutt, and what we have said will dispose of that matter.

While it was properly not permissible for the state to interrogate defendant about a prior transaction with the law in the matter of violating the prohibition statutes, yet, where the answer of the defendant negatives the imputation — in short, is favorable to himself — the error is rendered innocuous. Prescott v. State, 20 Ala. App. 466, 103 So. 75.

We have examined the entire record without finding error prejudicial to defendant’s rights. Other rulings presented by- the record are so clearly without error that we deem it unnecessary to give them separate treatment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 763, 21 Ala. App. 513, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hope-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack