Teal v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Teal v. State

145 So. 502, 25 Ala. App. 297, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 5

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 10, 1933

Docket4 Div. 958.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 So. 502 (Teal 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

Teal v. State, 145 So. 502, 25 Ala. App. 297, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 5 (Ala. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

If the evidence for the state is to be believed beyond a reasonable doubt, this defendant was in possession of two pints of whisky, at the time and place laid in the charge. Whether this evidence for the state was of sufficient weight to make out the case, as against the contra testimony of defendant and his witnesses, was a question for the jury to decide.

The very general insistences of error made in appellant’s brief direct our attention to several rulings of the court on the admission of testimony. We find no fault with the law quoted from Underhill (13th Ed.) Cr. Ev. 543, par. 380. But the predicate laid for the impeachment of a witness must relate to a material fact. The opinion of the witness Fralish, to whom the-predicate was attempted to be laid, that defendant had been “Treated mighty dirty,” • did not in a remote degree relate to any issue in the case.

The rulings of the court during the cross-examination of the state’s character witnesses were free from error. In conducting cross-examination, the trial court has a large discretion which was not in this case abused.

Other rulings are free from prejudicial error.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

If the evidence for the state is to be believed beyond a reasonable doubt, this defendant was in possession of two pints of whisky, at the time and place laid in the charge. Whether this evidence for the state was of sufficient weight to make out the case, as against the contra testimony of defendant and his witnesses, was a question for the jury to decide.

The very general insistences of error made in appellant’s brief direct our attention to several rulings of the court on the admission of testimony. We find no fault with the law quoted from Underhill (13th Ed.) Cr. Ev. 543, par. 380. But the predicate laid for the impeachment of a witness must relate to a material fact. The opinion of the witness Fralish, to whom the-predicate was attempted to be laid, that defendant had been “Treated mighty dirty,” • did not in a remote degree relate to any issue in the case.

The rulings of the court during the cross-examination of the state’s character witnesses were free from error. In conducting cross-examination, the trial court has a large discretion which was not in this case abused.

Other rulings are free from prejudicial error.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 So. 502, 25 Ala. App. 297, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teal-v-state-alactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack