Nicholson v. State

42 So. 1015, 149 Ala. 61, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 246
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided February 7, 1907·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

ANDERSON, J. —

The action of the trial court in permitting the state to examine the witness Smallwood, af[63] ter the defendant liad closed Ids evidence, was discretionary, notwithstanding the evidence was not in rebuttal, and should more properly have been brought out before the state rested. — Braham v. State, 143 Ala. 28, 38 South. 919; Riley v. State, 88 Ala. 193, 7 South. 149; 8 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 132.

So much of the argument of the solicitor as was objected to was legitimate as a reply to the argument of counsel for the defendant, and the trial court committed no error in refusing to exclude the same. — Bardin v. State, 143 Ala. 74, 38 South. 833.

The judgment of the city court is affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and McClellan, JJ., concur.

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

Nicholson v. State, 42 So. 1015, 149 Ala. 61, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 246 (Ala. 1907).

42 So. 1015 (Nicholson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Colston v. State
325 So. 2d 520 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1975)
Breedlove v. State
204 So. 2d 836 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1967)
Jarrell v. State
36 So. 2d 336 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1948)
Scott v. State
21 So. 2d 703 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1945)
Scott v. State
21 So. 2d 702 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1945)
McDowell v. State
191 So. 894 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1939)
Lambert v. State
93 So. 708 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)