Dollar v. State
| Decision Date | 15 June 1893 |
| Citation | 99 Ala. 236,13 So. 575 |
| Parties | DOLLAR v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Shelby county court; John S. Leeper, Judge.
Cricket Dollar was convicted of selling liquor to a minor, and appeals. Reversed.
The remarks of the solicitor referred to in the opinion, to which objection was made by the defendant, and to the overruling of which objection defendant duty excepted, are thus detailed in the bill of exceptions: "The defendant's counsel having, in his argument to the jury, stated that they could not convict the defendant for the simple offense of selling liquor without a license, as he was not charged with that offense, but for selling to a minor; that the punishment was different, and the solicitor's fees were different,-$7.50 in the former, and $37.50 in the latter,-the solicitor, in his closing argument to the jury, made the following statement, to wit: 'If I could put down the accursed traffic in this place, I would give up all my solicitor's fees in all the whisky cases, if I could enforce the law in all the cases."'
Brown McMillan & Leeper, for appellant.
Wm. L Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was prosecuted and tried for selling liquor to a minor contrary to the statute. The evidence of the state tended to show that defendant sold the minor a pint of whisky in Columbiana, Shelby county, within 12 months before the beginning of the prosecution. The solicitor, in his closing argument to the jury, used the following language: The defendant objected to these statements, on the grounds that there was no evidence to support them, and that they were calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury against the defendant and moved the court to withdraw them from the jury. The court overruled the objection and motion, and the defendant excepted. We do not think a narrow or rigid rule should be laid down in restraint of the argument of counsel. Observation and experience show that jury trials rarely occur wherein counsel, in the zeal of discussion, are not led to indulge impertinent remarks, the expression of personal opinions, and often to draw illogical and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...out of doing their duty"; and this court said that state's counsel had not exceeded the limit of legitimate argument. So in Dollar v. State, 99 Ala. 236, 13 So. 575, it declared that, in arguments to the jury in a criminal case, a "narrow or rigid" rule should not be laid down in restraint ......
-
Johnson v. State
...may properly comment upon the evil generally of the crime which the law he is seeking to enforce intends to prevent. Dollar v. State, 99 Ala. 236, 13 So. 575. It is only when the statement is of a substantive, outside fact--stated as a fact--and which manifestly bears on a material inquiry ......
-
Armstrong v. State
...comments which "state as fact that of which there is no evidence whatever." (Emphasis added.) Id., quoting Dollar v. State, 99 Ala. 236, 237-38, 13 So. 575, 576 (1892). The instant case differs from this situation in the same way that Diamond was distinguished by this Court. In Diamond, the......
-
Diamond v. State
...remark is overruled. Roden v. State, 3 Ala.App. 202, 58 So. 72 (1912); Racine, supra. The rule was discussed in Dollar v. State, 99 Ala. 236, 237, 238, 13 So. 575, 576 (1892). "We do not think a narrow or rigid rule should be laid down in restraint of the argument of counsel. Observation an......