Billingslea v. State
Decision Date | 07 December 1888 |
Parties | BILLINGSLEA v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; THOMAS M. ARRINGTON, Judge.
Indictment against Clay Billingslea for unlawful gaming. Verdict of guilty, and judgment accordingly. Defendant appeals.
We think it clear that it was not permissible to call out from the witness Hutchings what testimony he had given before the grand jury. A party on trial for a public offense has the constitutional right "to be confronted by the witness against him." The right of cross-examination is scarcely less sacred than this; and parties whose conduct is undergoing investigation before a grand jury have no right to be present, and are not permitted to be represented, before that body. It is a grand inquest, but it is secret and ex parte. The record before us shows that the witness was asked if he had not given certain testimony before the grand jury, when interrogated in reference to the charge against this defendant. This question was objected to, the objection overruled, and defendant excepted. This was not enough to raise the question. We cannot know that any answer was given to this question, or, if given, that it was not favorable to defendant. The record fails to inform us that this question was answered. Insurance Co. v. Moog, 78 Ala. 284, 309, and citations.
The testimony showed that when this witness was examined before the grand jury his testimony was reduced to writing, and signed by him. Against the objection and exception of defendant, this memorandum was allowed to be shown to the witness, and examined by him. He recognized and acknowledged his hand writing to the memorandum. He was asked "Refreshing your recollection by the statement of your testimony before the grand jury, state to the jury whether or not, within a week prior to the time you were a witness before the grand jury, at said July term of this court, you saw the defendant and others play a game of cards in a room in the Ruby Hotel, in this city." This question was leading, but trial courts are allowed a discretion in permitting leading questions to be put to one's own witness. It does not appear to have been objected to on that account. The witness answered: "In the neighborhood of a week; yes, sir." This question and answer were separately objected and excepted to. The witness, on cross-examination, "stated that without said written statement he could...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Douglas v. State
...238, syl 1)--for the reason that counsel himself would, in effect, be giving testimony.' The Kirkpatrick opinion rests on Billingslea v. State, 85 Ala. 323, 5 So. 137, Thompson v. State, 99 Ala. 173, 13 So. 753, and Mayfield's Dig. In the second paragraph of the Billingslea opinion, Stone, ......
-
Roll v. Dockery
...of the specific matter is a present existing one," the witness should speak then without the aid of the writing. Billingslea v. State, 85 Ala. 323, 5 So. 137; Calloway v. Varner, 77 Ala. 541, 54 Am. Rep. Powell v. Henry, 96 Ala. 412, 11 So. 311; Bolling v. Fannin, 97 Ala. 619, 12 So. 59; Da......
-
State v. Stewart.
...of his discovery of a certain physical condition, by having read to him portions of his testimony at the former trial. In Billingslea v. State, 85 Ala. 323, 5 So. 137, in similar situation the court decided: “Refreshing recollection of witness by memorandum.-A witness, being questioned as t......
-
State v. Stewart
...discovery of a certain physical condition, by having read to him portions of his testimony at the former trial. In Billingslea v. State, 85 Ala. 323, 5 So. 137, in similar situation the court decided: "Refreshing recollection of witness by memorandum.-A witness, being questioned as to the t......