Coates v. State

• Decision Date: 19 June 1912
• Citation: 5 Ala.App. 182,59 So. 323
• Parties: COATES v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

59 So. 323

5 Ala.App. 182

COATES v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 19, 1912

Rehearing Denied July 11, 1912.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Henry County; M. Sollie, Judge.

Jeff Coates was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The charges requested by the defendant were as follows:

"There is no proof in this case that the defendant kept for sale in Henry county spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors."

"(2) There is no proof in this case that the defendant kept for sale, or to be otherwise disposed of, spirituous, vinous or malt liquors."

H. L Martin, of Ozark, for appellant.

R. C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PELHAM, J.

The defendant was convicted of a violation of the prohibition laws.

The rulings on the motion to exclude certain portions of the testimony of the witness Morgan Clark are not presented in a way to raise the question of the correctness of the court's action in overruling the motion. As set out in the bill of exceptions, the motion is shown to have been made after the witness testified to these matters in response to questions, and no objection is shown to the questions. In fact, the witness is shown to have testified to the matters without objection. The defendant cannot put the court in error by moving to exclude answers that are responsive to the questions asked, when no objection was offered to the question. Otherwise it would be to allow the defendant to speculate on the answer of the witness and accept it, if satisfactory, and, if it proved detrimental or undesirable to reject it by moving to exclude. This the defendant cannot do. Powell v. State, 59 So. 530; W. U. Telegraph Co. v. Bowman, 141 Ala. 175, 37 So. 493; Dowling v. State, 151 Ala. 131, 44 So. 403; B. R. L. & P. Co. v. Taylor, 152 Ala. 105, 44 So. 580; Lewis v. State, 121 Ala. 1, 25 So. 1017; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Bogue, 58 So. 392.

The witness Morgan Clark having been allowed to testify without objection: "I have frequently seen a barrel of whisky at Eufaula shipped to the defendant at Eufaula. The last time I saw a barrel at the depot in Eufaula was on last Thursday. It was hauled out last Friday. His son hauled it out. It was marked, 'Glass, 12 1/2 gallons' "--it cannot be said to be prejudicial error to allow the witness, against the objection of the defendant, to further testify that he had seen other shipments to the defendant, some in barrels and some in drums, and that he "saw a shipment about a week before the one I [he] have just testified about." The latter statement was but a continuation of what the witness had testified about, and the connection of the defendant with the shipments is sufficiently shown to authorize an admission of the testimony.

The fact that the witness Clark took a "pretty active stand" on the whisky question, and prosecuted people for violations of the prohibition laws, was too general, for the purpose of showing a bias against the defendant, to authorize a reversal of the case because of the court's refusal to permit the question to be asked upon cross-examination. The witness to whom the question was put was not the state's witness, who had testified to the illegal sale by the defendant. Neither an affirmative nor a negative answer would have a tendency to show a bias against this defendant. The witness general activity in the enforcement of the law, if proven, would not authorize a conclusion of bias against the defendant.

The defendant having...