Bryan v. State
| Decision Date | 31 May 1921 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 868 |
| Citation | 18 Ala.App. 199,89 So. 894 |
| Parties | BRYAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 21, 1921
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; T.L. Sowell, Judge.
George Bryan was convicted of having carnal knowledge of a girl over 12 and under 16 years of age, or abusing in an attempt to have carnal knowledge, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Instruction that "If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, growing out of any part of the testimony, then you should find him not guilty," held properly refused, in that it predicates the finding on a part of the testimony without a consideration of all of it.
The following charges were refused to the defendant: (1) Affirmative charge. (2) Affirmative charges to count 1. (3) Affirmative charges to count 2. (5) You cannot convict the defendant upon the uncorroborated testimony of the state's witness, Alberta Franks. (7) If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, growing out of any part of the testimony, then you should find him not guilty. (10) If one single fact, inconsistent with the defendant's has been proven to your reasonable satisfaction, you should find the defendant not guilty.
E.B. & K.B. Fite, of Hamilton, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was convicted of having carnal knowledge of a girl over 12 years and under 16 years of age, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 2 years. The indictment having been returned more than three years after the 1915 Act (Laws 1915, p. 137), section 7700 of the Code of 1907 became effective, it was not necessary for the indictment to allege the date of the commission of the offense charged, or that it was committed subsequent to the passage of this act. Nor was it necessary for the indictment to allege that the defendant was under 16 years of age, as this was a matter of defense. Miller v. State, 16 Ala.App. 534, 79 So. 315.
For aught that appears from the record, there was but one act of carnal knowledge; and it not clearly and positively appearing that there were two separate and different acts, the trial court will not be placed in error in refusing to exclude the testimony of Alberta Franks on the ground that the state had proven one act, and thereby elected to try the defendant for this particular act. As stated above, the testimony does not so identify and particularize the facts and circumstances, as that they could not, and in fact did not, relate to but one and the same criminal act.
The trial court properly refused to permit evidence of the relationship of Alberta Franks with other men. As stated in Martin v. State, 17 Ala.App. 73, 81 So. 851:
"The purpose of the statute *** is to protect girls who are over the age of 12 years and under 16, by absolutely prohibiting intercourse with them, and this without regard to their reputation for chastity or their status in society."
There was no reversible error in sustaining the objections to the following question propounded to Alberta Franks: "Did you ever tell George how old you were?" Of course the question as to whether prosecutrix was between 12 and 16 years of age was a subject of legitimate inquiry, but if witness had ever told George how old she was would appear to be wholly immaterial. If it was intended to impeach the witness by showing that she had stated to George, on a particular occasion and time, that her age was different from what she had stated in this case, then the impeaching question should have been so framed.
As affecting the credibility of a witness, it may always be shown under our statute that the witness has been convicted of some crime involving moral turpitude. The appellant insists that the trial court was in error in refusing to permit him to ask Alberta Franks if she had not been convicted on a charge of vagrancy in Mississippi. Vagrancy under the law of Mississippi may or may not be a crime involving moral turpitude. Like our statute,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matthews v. State
...convictions for prostitution are admissible for impeachment purposes to attack the credibility of a witness. See Bryan v. State, 18 Ala.App. 199, 89 So. 894, 896 (1921); McIntosh v. State, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 392, 239 S.W. 622, 623 (1922) (overruling Ellis v. State, 117 S.W. 978 (Tex.1909), which ......
-
Sims v. Callahan
...Lumber & Cotton Co. v. Cole, 202 Ala. 688, 81 So. 664. Vagrancy (in absence of showing of act characterized as vagrancy)--Bryan v. State, 18 Ala.App. 199, 89 So. 894. Using Abusive and Obscene Language--Craven v. State, 22 Ala.App. 39, 111 So. Public Drunkenness--Grammer v. State, 239 Ala. ......
-
Ex parte McIntosh
...(1927); 5) trespass to land, United States Lumber & Cotton Co. v. Cole, 202 Ala. 688, 81 So. 664 (1919); 6) vagrancy, Bryan v. State, 18 Ala.App. 199, 89 So. 894 (1921); 7) using abusive and obscene language, Craven, supra; and 8) public drunkenness, Grammer v. State, 239 Ala. 633, 196 So. ......
-
Diamond v. State
...to show that the act characterized as vagrancy under the law would have been such an act as involved moral turpitude. Bryan v. State, 18 Ala.App. 199, 89 So. 894. Further, the court below prohibited questioning of the witness concerning the offense of driving while intoxicated. It is our ho......