Allford v. State
Decision Date | 18 March 1943 |
Docket Number | 2 Div. 191. |
Citation | 12 So.2d 407,244 Ala. 148 |
Parties | ALLFORD v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Thos H. Boggs, of Linden, for the petition.
Wm N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and Randolph G. Lurie, Asst Atty. Gen., opposed.
This is a petition for certiorari to review the action of the Court of Appeals in affirming a judgment for rape.
Under the rules long prevailing, we find no error to authorize the granting of the writ.
The Court of Appeals invokes the review by this Court of Weems v. State, 224 Ala. 524, 528, 141 So. 215; Id., 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158, 84 A.L.R. 527; and Thompson v. State, 27 Ala.App. 104, 166 So. 440 441.
In the Thompson case the ruling is predicated on the statement that, "In a prosecution of this character, the alleged injured party may be permitted to testify at the trial as to the act of sexual intercourse complained of, and that the accused had committed said act, but it was not permissible, in the absence of the accused and not within his hearing, for her to testify as to her acts and utterances subsequent to the commission of the crime. * * *" [Italics supplied.]
This is in accord with the rule that obtains and well stated by Judge Bricken in Stewart v. State, 26 Ala.App. 392, 161 So. 112, and on the decisions he cites by this Court.
In the case of Barnett v. State, 83 Ala. 40, 44, 3 So. 612, 614, Mr. Justice Somerville, dealing with the complaint of a prosecutrix under an indictment for rape, said:
The case of Weems v. State, supra, shows that the answer of the third party as a witness was in the negative and was an effort of identification. The court rested the ruling on the correct statement of the law that was announced in Barnes v. State, 88 Ala. 204, 7 So. 38, 16...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wasp v. State
...particular language the exceptor conceives to be erroneous. Allford v. State, 31 Ala.App. 62, 65, 12 So.2d 404, cert. denied, 244 Ala. 148, 12 So.2d 407 (1943). 'A reservation to a portion of the court's oral charge must be specific and designating, rather than descriptive and referable.' H......
-
Aaron v. State, 3 Div. 955
...have been followed or restated in other cases. See Griffin v. State, 76 Ala. 29; Bray v. State, 131 Ala. 46, 31 So. 107; Allford v. State, 244 Ala. 148, 12 So.2d 407; Lee v. State, 246 Ala. 69, 18 So.2d 706; Huggins v. State, 271 Ala. 428, 123 So.2d We again stress the fact that under the r......
-
Harris v. State, 8 Div. 582
...particular language the exceptor conceives to be erroneous. Allford v. State, 31 Ala.App. 62, 65, 12 So.2d 404, cert. denied, 244 Ala. 148, 12 So.2d 407 (1943). "A reservation to a portion of the court's oral charge must be specific and designating, rather than descriptive and referable." H......
-
Harris v. State
...Section 178.01 (3rd ed. 1977). However, the details and particulars of that complaint cannot ordinarily be introduced. Allford v. State, 244 Ala. 148, 12 So.2d 407 (1943). An exception to this rule is that "the full details of the complaint are admissible if the complaint is admissible as a......