Lakey v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Lakey v. State

122 So. 301, 23 Ala. App. 140, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 132

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 2, 1929

Docket7 Div. 534.

StatusPublished

This text of 122 So. 301 (Lakey 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

Lakey v. State, 122 So. 301, 23 Ala. App. 140, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 132 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

Under this evidence in this case, the defendant was not entitled to the general affirmative charge. There was direct evidence tending to make out a case against him for the offense charged, that of making use of abusive, insulting, or obscene language in the presence or hearing of a woman.

As a part of the res gestae, it was permissible to show that, at the time and place it was alleged that he committed the offense complained of, the defendant was drunk. The court properly instructed the jury in this connection.

In the matter of the attempt upon the part of the state to show that defendant’s witness J. D. Williams had formerly been convicted of a felony and served a term of imprisonment in the state penitentiary, the court properly sustained defendant’s several objections to the questions propounded by the state and to the manner evidence of such fact was sought to be elicited. The inquiry was permissible as affecting the credibility of the witness, but the questions propounded were not proper, the court so held, and, having ruled with .the defendant, he cannot here complain of these rulings. The court was under no duty to follow the insistences of defendant or to accord to the wishes or caprice of defendant by giving further instructions.

It appears that the accused was accorded a fair trial. No ruling of the court constituted reversible error. The record is regular, and the judgment of conviction appealed from will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

Under this evidence in this case, the defendant was not entitled to the general affirmative charge. There was direct evidence tending to make out a case against him for the offense charged, that of making use of abusive, insulting, or obscene language in the presence or hearing of a woman.

As a part of the res gestae, it was permissible to show that, at the time and place it was alleged that he committed the offense complained of, the defendant was drunk. The court properly instructed the jury in this connection.

In the matter of the attempt upon the part of the state to show that defendant’s witness J. D. Williams had formerly been convicted of a felony and served a term of imprisonment in the state penitentiary, the court properly sustained defendant’s several objections to the questions propounded by the state and to the manner evidence of such fact was sought to be elicited. The inquiry was permissible as affecting the credibility of the witness, but the questions propounded were not proper, the court so held, and, having ruled with .the defendant, he cannot here complain of these rulings. The court was under no duty to follow the insistences of defendant or to accord to the wishes or caprice of defendant by giving further instructions.

It appears that the accused was accorded a fair trial. No ruling of the court constituted reversible error. The record is regular, and the judgment of conviction appealed from will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 So. 301, 23 Ala. App. 140, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lakey-v-state-alactapp-1929.