Chiles v. State, 7 Div. 93.
| Citation | 26 Ala.App. 358,159 So. 700 |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1935 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 93. |
| Parties | CHILES v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; J. H. Disque, Jr., Judge.
Jim Chiles, alias Childs, was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
E. G Pilcher, of Gadsden, for appellant.
A. A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.
From a judgment of conviction for grand larceny, this appeal was taken.
Appellant was charged, in count 1 of the indictment, with the offense of feloniously taking and carrying away two bales of cotton of the value of $115, the personal property of J. H. Watson. The judgment of conviction was had upon that count.
The corpus delicti was sufficiently established by the state's evidence, and this evidence also tended to connect this appellant with the commission of the offense complained of. The appellant, however, strenuously denied any knowledge of, or participation in, the larceny of the cotton and offered numerous witnesses whose testimony tended strongly to show that at the time the crime was committed he was at another place, some fifty miles or more away and in another county. If this evidence was true and believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, this appellant could not have been the person who stole the cotton in question. This, and all other questions of fact, were for the jury to determine.
Appellant insists that innumerable errors were committed pending the trial of this case, and the insistences in this connection are specifically designated and pointed out in his assignment of errors, 45 in number.
The law contemplates and provides that every person charged with crime shall have a fair and impartial trial, free from error calculated to injure his substantial rights. In Patterson v. State, 202 Ala. 65, 79 So. 459, 462, the Supreme Court said:
Before entering upon the trial the defendant moved the court for a continuance on the ground of his illness, and upon other grounds not necessary to discuss; and in support of the motion as to his sickness offered the testimony of two reputable physicians whose testimony was in accord and to the effect that the defendant was unable to stand trial, as he was suffering with acute appendicitis and had been for several days, and that he was confined to his bed as a result of their orders. Granting or refusing continuances of trials is largely within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his rulings in this connection are not revisable unless it appears that a gross abuse of the discretion is shown. Jarvis v. State, 220 Ala. 501, 126 So. 127. Here, however, we need not decide this question, for in all probability it will not arise upon another trial of this case.
Every person on trial charged with the commission of a criminal offense may offer evidence of his previous good character, not only where doubt exists on the other proof, but even to generate a doubt of his guilt. Evidence of character of the accused must be confined to the time of, and anterior to, the commission of the offense charged, and a witness to be competent to testify to a defendant's general character must possess the means of knowing what it is before the commission of the offense, and a witness to character cannot speak of particular acts, of the person inquired about, but is confined to a statement of general reputation in the neighborhood in which he lives, or is known. The rule applies with equal force to original and rebutting testimony. The issue is good or bad repute, and to this each party is confined. So, also, the cross-examination of a character witness must be conducted within the limits of this inquiry. The cardinal rule, applicable to cross-examination, is that while it can take a wider range in the case than was covered by the examination in chief, and even elicit facts not before in evidence, it must still relate to facts in issue, or relevant, or deemed to be relevant thereto. In other words, character, whether good or bad, can only be proved by general reputation; evidence of particular acts or conduct is inadmissible, both on direct and cross examination, though in the latter greater latitude is allowed than in the former. Thompson v. State, 100 Ala. 70, 14 So. 878.
The defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnold v. State
...v. State, 251 Ala. 441, 443, 37 So.2d 753, 754 (1948); Briggs v. State, 549 So.2d 155, 159 (Ala.Cr.App.1989); Chiles v. State, 26 Ala.App. 358, 359, 159 So. 700, 701 (1935). However, a motion for continuance should be granted where it is made in order to obtain a missing witness or evidence......
-
Wilson v. State
...11 So.2d 563 31 Ala.App. 21 WILSON v. STATE. 4 Div. 683.Alabama Court of AppealsDecember 15, 1942 ... Rehearing ... Denied Jan. 12, 1943 ... The ... transaction occurred between midnight and 2 o'clock a.m., ... May 7, 1940, in the Colonial Inn, a roadhouse operated by ... appellant, Wilson. The case has just been ... showing of gross abuse of that discretion. Chiles v ... State, 26 Ala.App. 358, 159 So. 700. Here, the record ... affirms that the court committed ... ...
-
Richardson v. State, 6 Div. 248.
... ... 248.Court of Appeals of AlabamaJune 30, 1938 ... Rehearing ... Denied Oct. 4, 1938 ... Reversed ... After Remandment Feb. 7, 1939 ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; Henry B. Foster, ... Charlie ... Richardson was convicted of ... effect of the evidence in every case submitted to them ... In our ... case of Chiles v. State, 26 Ala.App. 358, 159 So ... 700, this court said (page 701): ... "The ... law contemplates and provides that every person ... ...
-
Mitchell v. State
...was improper. See also Harmon v. State, 22 Ala.App. 288, 115 So. 67; Patrick v. State, 39 Ala.App. 240, 97 So.2d 589; Chiles v. State, 26 Ala.App. 358, 159 So. 700; and annotations: 71 A.L.R. 1504 and 47 A.L.R.2d 1258. Thus, the general rule which we can deduce from this line of cases seems......