Colvin v. State
| Decision Date | 07 June 1945 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 340. |
| Citation | 247 Ala. 55,22 So.2d 548 |
| Parties | COLVIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
E L. Dodson, Ward & Ward, and Tom B. Ward, all of Tuscaloosa, for petitioner.
Wm N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and Forman Smith, Asst. Atty Gen., opposed.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the evidence made a case for the jury. However, the Court of Appeals holds that the testimony of Fire Chief Pete Matthews was admissible, in giving his opinion that the fire was of 'incendiary origin.' A fire 'of incendiary origin' is a malicious burning of property. Webster's New International Dictionary. Hence the witness was allowed to give his opinion on the ultimate fact in issue. Morris v. State, 124 Ala. 44, 27 So. 336. Was this testimony competent?
We consider that Fire Chief Pete Mattews qualified as an expert. If his foregoing testimony constituted an opinion on a matter of common knowledge, then it was inadmissible. Decatur Car Wheel & Manufacturing Co. v. Mehaffey, Adm'x, 128 Ala. 242, 29 So. 646. On the other hand, if the subject involved a field appropriate for expert testimony, then the testimony was admisible even though it was in practical affirmation of a material issue in the case. Watson v. Hardaway-Covington Cotton Co., 223 Ala. 443, 137 So. 33.
We should accordingly analyze the evidence and the objections thereto to interpret the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Omitting objections and exceptions, we quote from the record of the testimony of Fire Chief Pete Matthews, as follows:
The expert could express an opinion as to whether the fire burned naturally on the materials of which the house was built or with the aid of more inflammable matter. He could testify that in his opinion there was gasoline or kerosene at the point of the fire, even though there was no odor thereof, and that his opinion was based on the even burning across the back of the house. See First Nat. Bank v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia, 33 Or. 172, 50 P. 568, 53 P. 8 referred to in our decision in World Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Edmondson, 244 Ala. 224, 12 So.2d 754. Such expressions of opinion could be compatible with either guilt or innocence, dependent on whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parsons v. State
...defendant with the crime is wholly circumstantial. Colvin v. State, 32 Ala.App. 142, 22 So.2d 544, reversed on other grounds, 247 Ala. 55, 22 So.2d 548; Dyson v. State, 28 Ala.App. 549, 189 So. Tatum v. State, 20 Ala.App. 24, 100 So. 569; James v. State, 22 Ala.App. 183, 113 So. 648; Dutton......
-
Wimbley v. State
...as to whether a fire was intentionally set because such an opinion goes to the ultimate issue in an arson case. See Colvin v. State, 247 Ala. 55, 22 So.2d 548 (Ala.1945), Moreland v. State, 373 So.2d 1259 (Ala.Cr.App.1979) ; Huffman v. State, 470 So.2d 1368 (Ala.Cr.App.1985) ; Bolden v. Sta......
-
Seibold v. State
...on matters which are within the issues to be determined by the jury, provided such matters are not of common knowledge. Colvin v. State, 247 Ala. 55, 22 So.2d 548; Elkins v. State, 250 Ala. 672, 35 So.2d 693. In Birmingham Electric Co. v. Farmer, 251 Ala. 148, 151, 36 So.2d 343, this princi......
-
Travis v. State
...not be permitted to invade the province of the jury. Id. There are Alabama cases upholding this traditional rule. Colvin v. State, 247 Ala. 55, 22 So.2d 548 (1945); see C. Gamble, supra, at § 127.01(5). However, the modern trend is in the direction of permitting experts to give their opinio......