Webster v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Webster v. State

100 So. 201, 19 Ala. App. 587, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 50

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 1924

Docket6 Div. 286.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 100 So. 201 (Webster 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

Webster v. State, 100 So. 201, 19 Ala. App. 587, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 50 (Ala. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMPORD, J.

There were two counts in the indictment, but, the conviction being under the first count, it will not be necessary to notice rulings' of the court applicable only to the second count.

The defense was that of an alibi, and on this point the court in its oral charge said:

“The proof as to the alibi is sufficient whenever, taken in connection with all the evidence in the ease, it is sufficient to generate in your minds -a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant.”

This is the rule declared in Caraway v.. State, 18 Ala. App. 547, 93 South. 376, and to which we adhere.

Insistence is made in brief of counsel that error was committed by the trial court in another portion of its oral charge, the excerpt being quoted in the brief, but no. exception to this excerpt appears in the record. Unless exception is reserved on the trial and appears in the bill of exceptions, no question-for review is presented to this court. Bean v. State, 18 Ala. App. 281, 91 South. 499.

Upon the cross-examination of one of the state’s witnesses, defendant’s counsel spught to prove that witness had been engaged in manufacturing whisky, and that charges of a similar nature as the one for which defendant was then being tried were then pending against witness. This testimony was not relevant for any purpose. If witness had been convicted of manufacturing whisky, such conviction, not involving moral turpitude, could not be used to impeach his reputation. Abrams v. State, 17 Ala. App. 379, 84 South. 862. Nor would such evidence have a tendency to show bias or interest of the witness in favor of the cause or the person on trial.

Much latitude is to be allowed in cross- *588 examination of witnesses, within the sound discretion of the trial courts, and this discretion will not he reviewed except in extreme cases of abuse of this discretion. Lowman v. State, 161 Ala. 47, 50 South. 43. It may be noted that, in the Johnson Case, 199 Ala. 255, 74 South. 366, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the above rule, and for that reason refused to permit the judgment to be reversed.

The foregoing is also applicable to assignments 8 and 9. We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMPORD, J.

There were two counts in the indictment, but, the conviction being under the first count, it will not be necessary to notice rulings' of the court applicable only to the second count.

The defense was that of an alibi, and on this point the court in its oral charge said:

“The proof as to the alibi is sufficient whenever, taken in connection with all the evidence in the ease, it is sufficient to generate in your minds -a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant.”

This is the rule declared in Caraway v.. State, 18 Ala. App. 547, 93 South. 376, and to which we adhere.

Insistence is made in brief of counsel that error was committed by the trial court in another portion of its oral charge, the excerpt being quoted in the brief, but no. exception to this excerpt appears in the record. Unless exception is reserved on the trial and appears in the bill of exceptions, no question-for review is presented to this court. Bean v. State, 18 Ala. App. 281, 91 South. 499.

Upon the cross-examination of one of the state’s witnesses, defendant’s counsel spught to prove that witness had been engaged in manufacturing whisky, and that charges of a similar nature as the one for which defendant was then being tried were then pending against witness. This testimony was not relevant for any purpose. If witness had been convicted of manufacturing whisky, such conviction, not involving moral turpitude, could not be used to impeach his reputation. Abrams v. State, 17 Ala. App. 379, 84 South. 862. Nor would such evidence have a tendency to show bias or interest of the witness in favor of the cause or the person on trial.

Much latitude is to be allowed in cross- *588 examination of witnesses, within the sound discretion of the trial courts, and this discretion will not he reviewed except in extreme cases of abuse of this discretion. Lowman v. State, 161 Ala. 47, 50 South. 43. It may be noted that, in the Johnson Case, 199 Ala. 255, 74 South. 366, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the above rule, and for that reason refused to permit the judgment to be reversed.

The foregoing is also applicable to assignments 8 and 9. We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 So. 201, 19 Ala. App. 587, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webster-v-state-alactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack