Walker v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Walker v. State

64 So. 528, 10 Ala. App. 205, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 172

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 5, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 64 So. 528 (Walker 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

Walker v. State, 64 So. 528, 10 Ala. App. 205, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 172 (Ala. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, J.

There was no abuse of the court’s discretion in permitting the state’s counsel, on cross-examination of the defendant’s witness Watts, to ask him if he was not a detective, or in refusing to exclude his answer, “I have been.” This was a matter largely in the. discretion of the trial court, in which latitude may be allowed, even to the extent of sometimes permitting irrelevant questions to test the accuracy, veracity, or character for credibility of the witness. — Thompson v. State, 100 Ala. 70, 14 South. 878; Amos v. State, 96 Ala. 120, 11 South. 424.

The evidence was in conflict, and the court properly submitted the question of defendant’s guilt of the crime charged to the jury, and refused the general charge requested in writing by the defendant.

Other matters presented are not insisted upon by counsel for defendant in brief, and are not of suflfticient merit to justify discussion.

Affirmed.

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

PELHAM, J.

There was no abuse of the court’s discretion in permitting the state’s counsel, on cross-examination of the defendant’s witness Watts, to ask him if he was not a detective, or in refusing to exclude his answer, “I have been.” This was a matter largely in the. discretion of the trial court, in which latitude may be allowed, even to the extent of sometimes permitting irrelevant questions to test the accuracy, veracity, or character for credibility of the witness. — Thompson v. State, 100 Ala. 70, 14 South. 878; Amos v. State, 96 Ala. 120, 11 South. 424.

The evidence was in conflict, and the court properly submitted the question of defendant’s guilt of the crime charged to the jury, and refused the general charge requested in writing by the defendant.

Other matters presented are not insisted upon by counsel for defendant in brief, and are not of suflfticient merit to justify discussion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 So. 528, 10 Ala. App. 205, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-state-alactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack