Adams v. State, 6 Div. 369
| Decision Date | 13 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 369 |
| Citation | 280 Ala. 678,198 So.2d 255 |
| Parties | Henry ADAMS, Sr. v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
No attorney for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Paul T. Gish, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree of Eugene Henry Adams, Jr., aged sixteen, his son. The jury fixed punishment at life imprisonment in the penitentiary, and from a final judgment rendered accordingly, the defendant has perfected the instant appeal.
The State's evidence, which consisted of testimony from one of the defendant's sons, Gary, his wife, Juanita, two law enforcement officers, and the county coroner, tended to show that the defendant shot and killed his son, Henry, Jr. during the course of a family argument at their apartment residence on April 23, 1965. The altercation commenced between the defendant and his wife, both of whom were drinking vodka, around 9:00 P.M. in the living room of their two-story apartment. A short time later, the deceased, Henry, Jr., took his mother by the arm and led her upstairs to her bedroom. The defendant followed and the argument was resumed. In the meantime, Henry, Jr. had gone to an adjoining bedroom. Some ten minutes elapsed, and the defendant, having secured a pistol from underneath a mattress while in the bedroom, fired a shot into the wall. According to his wife's testimony, Henry, Jr. rushed into the room and was shot one time by her husband. There was evidence from which the jury might have found that the defendant suspected it was his stepson entering the room. From the defendant's testimony, it appeared that he had encountered a great deal of difficulty with his stepson over a period of time and had asked him on several occasions to leave. Immediately after the defendant shot Henry, Jr., he fell over him and began giving mouth to mouth resuscitation. He was found in that position by the arresting police officers.
The defendant pleaded not guilty to the indictment and was his only witness. He testified that he shot his son unintentionally; that he did not know anyone else was in the room other than his wife; that he was oiling and unloading the pistol when the shot was fired.
No brief has been filed in this court for the defendant, but that it not essential to our review by virtue of Tit. 15, § 389, Code 1940. Higginbotham v. State, 262 Ala. 236, 78 So.2d 637; Phillips v. State, 272 Ala. 216, 130 So.2d 822.
A study of the record, as is our duty in cases of this nature, whether with the aid of brief or not, convinces us that the lower court committed prejudicial error against the defendant when his counsel's question on cross-examination, 'Gary, do you love your father?,' was sustained upon objection by the district attorney.
It is always permissible to cross-examine a witness to ascertain his interest, bias, prejudice or partiality concerning the matters about which he is testifying. Nichols v. State, 276 Ala. 209, 160 So.2d 619, and cases there cited.
As affecting credibility, it is permissible, on cross-examination, to inquire of a witness his relations to the parties, or to the subject-matter of controversy, or as to feelings of sympathy, or partiality, or hostility which he may entertain, or may have expressed toward the party introducing him, or against whom he is introduced. Nichols v. State, supra; Green v. State, 258 Ala. 471, 64 So.2d 84.
Ordinarily, the proper way to show bias on the part of a witness is to ask him directly the state of his feelings and if he denies bias, or says his state of feeling is good, then resort may be had to facts tending to show otherwise. Nichols v. State, 276 Ala. 209, 160 So.2d 619; Meador v. State, 37 Ala.App. 573, 72 So.2d 418. However, as pointed out in Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Martin, 240 Ala. 124, 198 So. 141, our cases do not require in every case, as a condition precedent as to any question on cross-examination to show bias, that the witness must first be asked about the state of his feelings.
Here, the question, 'Gary, do you love your father?' was asked on cross-examination after the son had given damaging evidence against the defendant, his father, on direct examination. The jury was entitled to know the state of his feelings toward his father as affecting his credibility. In sustaining the objection to this question, the trial court committed reversible error.
At this point, we quote a portion of the trial court's oral charge, which was palpably erroneous, but to which no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...in issue. It is never proper for the prosecutor to state his belief in the guilt or innocence of the accused. Adams v. State, 280 Ala. 678, 198 So.2d 255 (1967). Similarly, the prosecutor must not argue his own credibility to the jury; that is a condemned practice, Waldrop v. State, 424 So.......
-
Arthur v. State
...513 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). Id. at 193. The King court then quoted the following from Moseley, 448 So.2d at 456-57: "In Adams v. State, 280 Ala. 678, 198 So.2d 255 (1967), our Supreme Court " 'It is, of course, never proper for the prosecuting attorney or the defendant's attorney to state in arg......
-
Smiley v. State
...31 Ala.App. 605, 606, 20 So.2d 881, 882 (1945), or to state his opinion or belief that the defendant is guilty, Adams v. State, 280 Ala. 678, 680, 198 So.2d 255, 257 (1967); Davis v. State, 494 So.2d 851, 857 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Sams v. State, 506 So.2d 1027, 1029 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Mainor v......
-
International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. Hatas
...any question on cross-examination to show bias, that the witness must first be asked about the state of his feelings. See Adams v. State, 280 Ala. 678, 198 So.2d 255; Nichols v. State, 276 Ala. 209, 160 So.2d 619. We see no reason why such a question had to be asked of Partin as a condition......