Echols v. State
| Decision Date | 08 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 591 |
| Parties | ECHOLS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
S. A. Lynne, Decatur, for petitioner.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and L. E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
We cannot agree with the opinion of the Court of Appeals in its holding that no reversible error intervened in the cross-examination of defendant's character, witness Lester Whitten.
It is needless, of course, to repeat here the examination of the witness as revealed by the opinion of the Court of Appeals. That court recognized that character cannot be proven by specific act, but based its opinion on the fact that only a general objection was interposed to the question, and that no error results in overruling such objection unless the evidence sought is illegal for any purpose and cannot be made legal by other evidence, or by otherwise framing the question. Citing Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Scott, 232 Ala. 284, 167 So. 572.
We have no quarrel with the principles enunciated, but we cannot agree that they were properly applied in the instant case.
Undoubtedly, to permit a witness to testify that he had seen defendant drunk or drinking, tended to prove character (his drinking proclivities) by specific acts. To permit a witness to testify that he had heard that the defendant drank tends to prove the general reputation of defendant for drinking. Character can only be proven by reputation. To change an inquiry as to what a witness had seen, to a question as to what a witness had heard, is not to reframe the inquiry, but is to ask an entirely different question. And we can think of no way by which the question actually asked could have been made legal by other evidence.
As we have indicated the evidence is illegal for any purpose, and cannot be made legal, and general grounds assigned in support of the objection to it was sufficient and should have been sustained.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for further consideration.
Reversed and remanded.
All the Justices concur, except BROWN, J., who dissents.
BROWN, J., is of the opinion that the Court of Appeals has applied the doctrine of error without injury, and, as a consequence the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed. He, therefore, dissents.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Traweek v. State
...for peace and quiet prior to the killing. See also Echols v. State, 36 Ala.App. 302, 55 So.2d 522, reversed on other grounds, 256 Ala. 389, 55 So.2d 530; Lynn v. State, 21 Ala.App. 29, 104 So. In our review of the record, we find that, during the cross-examination of one such defense witnes......
-
Mitchell v. State
...personal knowledge of the witness concerning specific misdeeds of the defendant. Moulton v. State, 88 Ala. 116, 6 So. 758; Echols v. State,256 Ala. 389, 55 So.2d 530. In Mullins v. State, 31 Ala.App. 571, 19 So.2d 845, our Court of Appeals, Carr, J., held that it was improper for the solici......
-
Roberson v. United States
...made legal, and general grounds assigned in support of the objection to it was sufficient and should have been sustained." Echols v. State, 256 Ala. 389, 55 So.2d 530. 10 "You are not to consider any offense that may have been referred to by any question or any answer here, other than the o......
-
Cook v. State, 6 Div. 129
...have been admissible. Nichols v. State, 267 Ala. 217, 100 So.2d 750 (1958) (evidence not admissible for any purpose); Echols v. State, 256 Ala. 389, 55 So.2d 530 (1952) (evidence illegal for any purpose); Watkins v. State, 219 Ala. 254, 122 So. 610 (1929) (evidence patently illegal, irrelev......