Le Nier v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Le Nier v. State

96 So. 459, 19 Ala. App. 227, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 99

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 8, 1923

Docket6 Div. 167.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 96 So. 459 (Le Nier 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

Le Nier v. State, 96 So. 459, 19 Ala. App. 227, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 99 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

It will not be necessary to make a full statement of the evidence in this case, as we have examined the record and find that as to questions which might otherwise be discussed, no proper exceptions were reserved, and as to those points now raised, without such proper objection and excei)tion, this court will not consider. Bean v. State, 18 Ala. App. 281, 91 South. 499.

While Lester Boswell was being examined as a witness for the state, preliminary to the offering of testimony of a dying declaration, the solicitor asked:, “I will ask you if Mr. Howton said he knew he was going to die?” The reply was: “Howton said he was shot to kill.” Witness was then asked: “Did he then say anything in your presence about how it happened, anything about it?” There was a general • objection to this'question, but no exception- was reserved. In answer to the question the witness answered: “Said he was a dirty coward to shoot him up that way.” Motion was made to exclude this answer on the ground, among others, that it was a -conclusion or opinion. This motion was overruled and defendant excepted.

No exception having been reserved.to the action of the court in overruling the objection to She question, it is not necessary for us to pass upon the sufficiency of the predicate; but the .answer was clearly a conclusion. Dying declarations, when properly predicated, are admissible in evidence, when and where facts are stated relevant to the issues involved, but not otherwise. Gissendanner v. State, 18 Ala. App. 199, 89 South. 835; Pilcher v. State, 16 Ala. App. 237, 77 South. 75.

Upon a reading of this entire record, we must conclude that the foregoing error was prejudicial to defendant’s rights, and therefore the judgment is reversed, and the cause is .remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

FOSTER, J., not sitting.

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

SAMFORD, J.

It will not be necessary to make a full statement of the evidence in this case, as we have examined the record and find that as to questions which might otherwise be discussed, no proper exceptions were reserved, and as to those points now raised, without such proper objection and excei)tion, this court will not consider. Bean v. State, 18 Ala. App. 281, 91 South. 499.

While Lester Boswell was being examined as a witness for the state, preliminary to the offering of testimony of a dying declaration, the solicitor asked:, “I will ask you if Mr. Howton said he knew he was going to die?” The reply was: “Howton said he was shot to kill.” Witness was then asked: “Did he then say anything in your presence about how it happened, anything about it?” There was a general • objection to this'question, but no exception- was reserved. In answer to the question the witness answered: “Said he was a dirty coward to shoot him up that way.” Motion was made to exclude this answer on the ground, among others, that it was a -conclusion or opinion. This motion was overruled and defendant excepted.

No exception having been reserved.to the action of the court in overruling the objection to She question, it is not necessary for us to pass upon the sufficiency of the predicate; but the .answer was clearly a conclusion. Dying declarations, when properly predicated, are admissible in evidence, when and where facts are stated relevant to the issues involved, but not otherwise. Gissendanner v. State, 18 Ala. App. 199, 89 South. 835; Pilcher v. State, 16 Ala. App. 237, 77 South. 75.

Upon a reading of this entire record, we must conclude that the foregoing error was prejudicial to defendant’s rights, and therefore the judgment is reversed, and the cause is .remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

FOSTER, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 So. 459, 19 Ala. App. 227, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/le-nier-v-state-alactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack