Campbell v. State
| Decision Date | 05 June 1902 |
| Citation | 133 Ala. 158,32 So. 635 |
| Parties | CAMPBELL v. STATE. [1] |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; William H. Thomas, Judge.
Joe Campbell was convicted of living in adultery, and appeals. Affirmed.
In addition to the facts set out in the opinion, Island Calvin the husband of the woman Mary Calvin, testified that he permitted the defendant to live in his house with him and his wife, and that he had seen illicit relations between the defendant and his wife; that the defendant slept in an adjoining room to his, with a thin partition between them that one night, after the defendant had lived in his house for about two weeks, and after the witness and his wife had retired, and while the defendant was lying in his bed in the adjoining room, upon the witness' wife declining to let him touch her, or have anything to do with her, the defendant laughed out loud. The defendant moved the court to exclude this testimony upon the ground that it was immaterial, and had no relevancy to the issues involved in the case.
Robt. G. Arrington, for appellant.
Chas G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Joe Campbell, a white man, was indicted, tried, and convicted for living in a state of adultery or fornication with Mary Calvin, a negro. The said Mary was separately indicted for living in a state of adultery with him; she being a married woman. On the trial of Campbell, the state was allowed against his objection, to introduce, and examine as a witness, Island Calvin, the husband of the said Mary, to prove its charge against him; and defendant's exception to this action of the court is relied on here to work a reversal of the judgment. The witness' wife, Mary Calvin though also indicted for living in adultery with this defendant, was not, as we have seen, indicted jointly with him, but separately, and she, of course, was not on trial with him. Testimony of the husband, going to prove the unlawful cohabitation between his wife and the defendant, against the latter, on this trial, could not, therefore, in any way tend to prove the guilt of the wife under the indictment against her. Nor would the conviction of this defendant be res adjudicata, or any evidence of the wife's guilt. State v. Cutshall (N. C.) 14 S.E. 107, 26 Am. St. Rep. 599. It is settled in this state that, in such case, the husband may testify on the trial of the party separately tried for an offense alleged to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Harrell
...of appellant\'s guilt of that offense. People v. Kief, 126 N.Y. 661, 27 N.E. 556; State v. Bowker, 26 Or. 309, 38 P. 124; Campbell v. State, 133 Ala. 158, 32 So. 635; 16 C.J. 670. The judgment is In Babb v. United States (supra, footnote 10), we reversed the conviction because the trial cou......
-
Smith v. State
...privileged. To this end an appropriate assignment of error is as essential as objections to the evidence. Williams v. State, supra; Campbell v. State, supra; Pruett State, 141 Ala. 71, 37 So. 343; Coltart v. Laughinghouse, 38 Ala. 190. The defendant offered several witnesses whose testimony......
-
Lane v. State
...objections and exceptions of defendant. It was error so to do.' See also Babb v. United States, 5 Cir., 218 F.2d 538; Campbell v. State, 133 Ala. 158, 32 So. 635 (dictum); Pool v. State, 19 Ala.App. 406, 98 So. 309 (defendant not permitted to adduce such proof to exonerate). Annotation 48 A......
-
Leroy v. Government of Canal Zone, 7745.
...of appellant's guilt of that offense. People v. Kief, 126 N.Y. 661, 27 N.E. 556; State v. Bowker, 26 Or. 309, 38 P. 124; Campbell v. State, 133 Ala. 158, 32 So. 635; 16 C.J. 670. The judgment is ...