Carter v. State, 118

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtMcCLELLAN, J.
Citation67 So. 981,191 Ala. 3
Docket Number118
Decision Date11 February 1915
PartiesCARTER v. STATE.

67 So. 981

191 Ala. 3

CARTER
v.
STATE.

No. 118

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 11, 1915


Appeal from Circuit Court, Conecuh County; A.E. Gamble, Judge.

Martin Carter was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Reversed and remanded. [67 So. 982]

James A. Stallworth, of Evergreen, for appellant.

W.L. Martin, Atty. Gen., and T.H. Seay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

McCLELLAN, J.

The appellant has been adjudged guilty of murder in the first degree. The victim was one Lett. The state's theory was that the homicide was of an entirely unjustifiable character. The defense was a denial of any participation of any kind, in the killing of Lett, by the accused; an alibi being offered to sustain his denial. Manifestly the question of guilt vel non was for the jury, under the evidence.

The substance of a dying declaration said to have been made by Lett, under affirmatively proven consciousness of his impending dissolution, was admitted in evidence. There is no room for argument against the propriety of the action of the court in admitting to the jury the matter of the dying declaration. The predicate was satisfactorily laid to allow the admission in evidence of all the declarant said descriptive of the circumstances attendant upon and surrounding his version of the tragedy. Where a dying declaration is properly admitted in evidence, it may be discredited or impeached just as if the declarant had testified as a witness in the proceeding. So it is competent to allow the declarant's credibility to be inquired into, his reputation for truth and veracity, and whether he would, if testifying as a witness in that behalf, be worthy of belief, in a court of justice. 21 Cyc. pp. 993, 994; Ency. on Evi. p. 1015; Carver v. U.S., 164 U.S. 694, 697, 17 Sup.Ct. 228, 41 L.Ed. 602; Lester v. State, 37 Fla. 382, 20 So. 232; Gambrell v. State, 92 Miss. 728, 46 So. 138, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 291, 131 Am.St.Rep. 549, 16 Ann.Cas. 147.

The witness McCrory was called by the prosecution. He testified to a declaration by Lett, who had told him he was going to die. On cross-examination the witness testified, without objection, that Lett's general reputation and his reputation for truth and veracity were bad. He was then asked whether Lett would have been entitled to belief as a witness, in a court of justice. The state's general objection to the question was sustained. Perhaps the trial court entertained the opinion that the injection of the inquiry made by the question was not in order under a proper cross-examination; that it should have come on the defendant's initiative, the witness not having testified on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Arthur v. State, 8 Div. 873
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 10, 1984
    ...This is true even though the matter elicited on cross-examination was not touched on in direct examination. Carter v. State, 191 Ala. 3, 67 So. 981 (1915); Shields v. State, 52 Ala.App. 690, 296 So.2d 786 (1974); C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 171.01(5) (3rd ed. In this instance, ......
  • Boyette v. Bradley, 6 Div. 989.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 29, 1924
    ...Adams was properly cross-examined. Ex parte State, 199 Ala. 255, 74 So. 366; Amos v. State, 96 Ala. 121, 11 So. 424; Carter v. State, 191 Ala. 3, 67 So. 981; Smith v. Kress & Co., 210 Ala. 436, 98 So. 378. The witness Daniels was giving his best recollection or judgment as to the matter......
  • Shepherd v. Gardner Wholesale, Inc., 6 Div. 831
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1972
    ...was properly cross-examined citing Ex parte State, 199 Ala. 255, 74 So. 366; Amos v. State, 96 Ala. 120, 11 So. 424; Carter v. State, 191 Ala. 3, 67 So. 981; Smith v. S. H. Kress & Co., 210 Ala. 436, 98 So. The Supreme Court of the State of Washington in the case of Lankford v. Tombari,......
  • Marshall v. State, 8 Div. 56.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 21, 1929
    ...impeached in the same manner and for the causes for which the testimony of a witness given on the stand may be impeached. Carter v. State, 191 Ala. 3, 67 So. 981; Shell v. State, 88 Ala. 14, 7 So. 40; Moore v. State, 12 Ala. 764, 46 Am. Dec. 276; 30 C.J. 278; 1 R. C. L. 84. The religious un......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Arthur v. State, 8 Div. 873
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 10, 1984
    ...adversary." This is true even though the matter elicited on cross-examination was not touched on in direct examination. Carter v. State, 191 Ala. 3, 67 So. 981 (1915); Shields v. State, 52 Ala.App. 690, 296 So.2d 786 (1974); C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 171.01(5) (3rd ed. In thi......
  • Boyette v. Bradley, 6 Div. 989.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 29, 1924
    ...Adams was properly cross-examined. Ex parte State, 199 Ala. 255, 74 So. 366; Amos v. State, 96 Ala. 121, 11 So. 424; Carter v. State, 191 Ala. 3, 67 So. 981; Smith v. Kress & Co., 210 Ala. 436, 98 So. 378. The witness Daniels was giving his best recollection or judgment as to the matters in......
  • Marshall v. State, 8 Div. 56.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 21, 1929
    ...impeached in the same manner and for the causes for which the testimony of a witness given on the stand may be impeached. Carter v. State, 191 Ala. 3, 67 So. 981; Shell v. State, 88 Ala. 14, 7 So. 40; Moore v. State, 12 Ala. 764, 46 Am. Dec. 276; 30 C.J. 278; 1 R. C. L. 84. The religious un......
  • Shepherd v. Gardner Wholesale, Inc., 6 Div. 831
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1972
    ...was properly cross-examined citing Ex parte State, 199 Ala. 255, 74 So. 366; Amos v. State, 96 Ala. 120, 11 So. 424; Carter v. State, 191 Ala. 3, 67 So. 981; Smith v. S. H. Kress & Co., 210 Ala. 436, 98 So. The Supreme Court of the State of Washington in the case of Lankford v. Tombari, 35 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT