Funderberg v. State
| Decision Date | 13 February 1894 |
| Parties | FUNDERBERG v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Anniston; James W. Lapsley, Judge.
Daniel Funderberg was convicted of gambling, and appeals. Affirmed.
On the trial of the case, the state introduced only one witness, Ned Larkin, who testified that at a certain time and place, about three months before the finding of the indictment, he, the witness, and the defendant, and a number of others engaged in a game of cards in the city of Anniston, Ala., at which game money was bet, and that at said game the defendant lost 50 cents or a dollar. The defendant, on being introduced as a witness in his own behalf, testified that he never, at any time, engaged in a game of cards with the said Ned Larkin, as testified to by him; that, at the time specified by Larkin he was at home, with his sick wife. There was some evidence introduced by the defendant tending to corroborate him in his testimony. The defendant offered to show by three different witnesses that each of them knew "the general character of the defendant in the community in which he lived for truth and veracity, and that defendant's general character for truth and veracity in that community was good." To this evidence the state objected, the court sustained the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. This presents the only question presented on this appeal.
John F Methvin, for appellant.
Wm. L Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant, as all defendants in criminal trials are privileged to do, could have introduced evidence, available to him, or his previous good general character, to be considered by the jury in connection with the other evidence in determining the question of guilt or innocence. It is his general character, we say, not particular traits of character, which he may thus put in issue. In the present case the defendant became a witness in his own behalf, and to bolster up his testimony, undertook to prove by witnesses that he was a man of good character for truth and veracity. This was not allowable. He had not been, or attempted to be impeached as a witness by the state, either by the introduction of evidence of bad character on his part, or of statements made by him out of court, contradictory of his testimony on the trial, without which he would not be permitted to sustain himself as a witness by proof of his good character for truth and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...is not admissible to sustain the credibility of a witness whose testimony has not been sought to be impeached. Funderberg v. State, 100 Ala. 36, 14 So. 877 (1893)." Fisher, 439 So.2d at Our review of the record fails to reveal any reversible error associated with the admission of this evide......
-
Smith v. State
......Dodson's Case, 86 Ala. 60, 5 So. 485. . . The. defendant's character for honesty was not in issue, and. the court properly sustained the solicitor's objection to. the interrogatory calling for such evidence. Davenport's. Case, 85 Ala. 336, 5 So. 152; Funderberg's Case, 100 Ala. 36, 14 So. 877; Walker's Case, 91 Ala. 76, 9 So. 87. . . The. character of the defendant's parents was not in any. respect involved in the issues in this case, and, whether. good or bad, was not a proper subject of inquiry. Objections. to the interrogatories ......
-
Lassiter v. State, 1 Div. 596
...situation about which we are concerned in the instant case. The doctrine is expressed more specifically in the case of Funderberg v. State, 100 Ala. 36, 14 So. 877, 878: 'In the present case, the defendant became a witness in his own behalf, and, to bolster up his testimony, undertook to pr......
-
Gratton v. State, 6 Div. 744
...(6) (3rd ed.1977) (footnotes omitted). See generally McPhearson v. State, 271 Ala. 533, 125 So.2d 709 (1960); Funderberg v. State, 100 Ala. 36, 14 So. 877 (1894); Clark v. State, 56 Ala.App. 67, 318 So.2d 813 (1974), cert. quashed, 294 Ala. 493, 318 So.2d 822, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 937, 96......