Burger v. State
| Decision Date | 21 December 1887 |
| Citation | 83 Ala. 36,3 So. 319 |
| Parties | BURGER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from criminal court, Jefferson county; S.E. GREEN, Judge.
Indictment for grand larceny. Bob Burger was indicted for stealing a horse, and, upon conviction, he appealed.
Thos. N. McClellan, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The criminal court committed no reversible error in allowing the witness Henry Davis to be asked, on cross-examination, if he did not tell the officer, in reply to an inquiry, that he did not know where the defendant was. Much latitude must be allowed on cross-examination, and much must be intrusted to the enlightened discretion of the presiding judge. Ingram v. State, 67 Ala. 67; Sylvester v. State, 71 Ala. 17; De Arman v. State, Id 351. Any testimony tending to show bias or partiality of the witness to the party in whose behalf he has testified is admissible on cross-examination. Even questions which call for criminating answers may be allowed by the court on cross-examination; but, if the witness is unwilling to answer such question, he must not be forced to do so. Witnesses cannot be required to criminate themselves, if they claim their constitutional exemption. What we have said relates to ordinary witnesses. If defendants in criminal prosecutions elect to make statements or testify in their own behalf rules somewhat different are applied. Clarke v. State, 78 Ala. 474.
The affirmative charge instructed the jury that it was not necessary to a conviction that the defendant should have removed the horse from Glenn's premises; that if the horse was taken away by some one other than the defendant, or got away himself, and the defendant afterwards feloniously took and carried it away, he would be equally guilty as if he had taken the horse from the premises of the owner. This charge asserted nothing more than that the horse could be the subject of larceny, even though, at the time, he had been removed, or had strayed from the premises of his owner. It is scarcely necessary to cite authorities in support of this proposition. Griggs v. State, 58 Ala. 426. There was no error in giving this charge.
What we have said above demonstrates that the trial court did not err in refusing the second and third charges asked by the defendant. Each of them bases the right of acquittal on the fact, if found to be a fact, that the defendant did not leave his house during the night when it is claimed the horse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. State
... ... Within ... these limits, the fullest cross-examination should be ... allowed; but its range into inquiries respecting past ... transactions and offenses, separate, and distinct, is ... prohibited by the constitutional inhibition." ... See ... Smith v. State, 79 Ala. 21; Burger v ... State, 83 Ala. 36, 3 So. 319; Rains v. State, ... 88 Ala. 91, 7 So. 315; Caldwell v. State, 160 Ala ... 96, 49 So. 679; Walker v. State, 205 Ala. 197, 200, ... 87 So. 833 ... Of the ... alleged improper questions propounded on cross-examination to ... Mrs. Anderson, ... ...
-
Ex parte State
...favorable to great latitude in this regard. Marler v. State, 68 Ala. 580; Cox v. State, supra; Ingram v. State, 67 Ala. 67; Burger v. State, 83 Ala. 36, 3 So. 319; Lowman v. State, 161 Ala. 47, 50 So. 43. It evident that in this cross-examination there was no abuse of discretion by the tria......
-
Dickey v. State
... ... laid down. Much wider liberality of cross-examination is ... permissible when the witness betrays partisanship or ... partiality than when he narrates the facts with prompt ... indifference, whether they favor the one side or the ... other." Ingram v. State, 67 Ala. 67; Burger ... v. State, 83 Ala. 36, 3 So. 319 ... "The tendency of modern practice seems favorable to ... great latitude, however, in this regard." Marler v ... State, 68 Ala. 580; 1 Greenleaf, Evidence, §§ 454-455 ... And in ... the cases above cited the Supreme Court lays down the rule ... ...
-
Sorrell v. Scheuer
... ... [96 So. 218] ... or illustrate the accuracy of the witness' statements or ... memory. Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50, 93 So. 706; ... Johnson v. State, 199 Ala. 255, 74 So. 366; ... Tapscott v. State, 18 Ala. App. 67, 88 So. 376 ... justify a reversal for allowing too great latitude in ... cross-examination. Cox v. State, supra; Burger v ... State, 83 Ala. 36, 3 So. 319; Ingram v. State, ... 67 Ala. 67, 68 ... Assignment of error is rested upon refusal of the ... ...