Meek v. State
This text of 148 So. 340 (Meek 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.
Opinion
The issue was simple and clearly defined ■by the presiding judge.
The question to Hall, a witness for the state: “Didn’t he (Kyser) tell you that they were down there in Mr. Barlow’s pasture and you said that she was twenty-one and could take care of herself?” called for hearsay testimony and matters res inter alios acta.
The question to defendant’s witriess, Barrington: “In fact she was knocking about a good deal with Bibb (Kelley) that summer, wasn’t she?” calls for a conclusion. Moreover, the witness had already testified to the association of Kelley and prosecutrix, giving dates and facts, and the answer to the above question could have added nothing to his testimony.
The question asked defendant’s witness Godwin: “After Bibb Kelley moved to Florida did you have a conversation with Virgie Lee Hall about Bibb Kelley sending her money to go down there?” may or may not have been relevant, but its relevancy is not made to appear by this record, and this court will not enter into the realm of speculation in order to find error.
Other exceptions to the introduction of evidence are clearly free from prejudicial error.
The evidence is in irreconcilable conflict, as is usually the case in proceedings of this character. The law places the responsibility of weighing the evidence on the jury, and there we leave it. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Iiét the judgment be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
148 So. 340, 25 Ala. App. 449, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meek-v-state-alactapp-1933.