Prior v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Prior v. State

99 Ala. 196

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 15, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 99 Ala. 196 (Prior v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prior v. State, 99 Ala. 196 (Ala. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

HEAD, J.

Defendant, being on trial for the offense of carrying concealed weapons, testified as a witness in his own behalf. The State introduced in evidence the record of his prior conviction, and sentence thereon, of the offense of petit larceny, for the purpose solely of affecting his credibility as a witness. It was so expressly limited by the court. There was a general objection by the defendant to its introduction, which was overruled, a,nd defendant excepted. The ruling of the court was proper, under the influence of section 276(5 of the Code of 1886.

The charge requested by the defendant is bad for several reasons. It invades the province of the jury. It was for the jury to determine the weight and value of the impeaching testimony, and whether impeachment of the witness Dickinson was made out or not; and if made out, it was for them to say whether it was sufficient to generate a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt or not. The charge is also abstract, in that it states a casó in which the testimony of the witness supposed to be impeached is not supported by any other evidence. In this case, there was evidence in support of Dickinson, ■

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

HEAD, J.

Defendant, being on trial for the offense of carrying concealed weapons, testified as a witness in his own behalf. The State introduced in evidence the record of his prior conviction, and sentence thereon, of the offense of petit larceny, for the purpose solely of affecting his credibility as a witness. It was so expressly limited by the court. There was a general objection by the defendant to its introduction, which was overruled, a,nd defendant excepted. The ruling of the court was proper, under the influence of section 276(5 of the Code of 1886.

The charge requested by the defendant is bad for several reasons. It invades the province of the jury. It was for the jury to determine the weight and value of the impeaching testimony, and whether impeachment of the witness Dickinson was made out or not; and if made out, it was for them to say whether it was sufficient to generate a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt or not. The charge is also abstract, in that it states a casó in which the testimony of the witness supposed to be impeached is not supported by any other evidence. In this case, there was evidence in support of Dickinson, ■

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 Ala. 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prior-v-state-ala-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack