Gamble v. State, 7 Div. 184
Decision Date | 07 October 1952 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 184 |
Citation | 60 So.2d 696,36 Ala.App. 581 |
Parties | GAMBLE v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Matt H. Murphy, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and M. Roland Nachman, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. and (Wm. H. Sanders, Montgomery, of counsel), for the State.
Appellant was tried in the County Court of Shelby County, Alabama, upon affidavit and warrant charging him with the offense of driving while intoxicated. From a judgment of conviction in said court an appeal was taken to the circuit court where defendant was tried upon a complaint filed by the Circuit Solicitor. The complaint is as follows:
'On appeal from the County Court, comes the State of Alabama by its solicitor and complains that within 12 months before the commencement of this prosecution and in Shelby County, Langton Gamble, did while intoxicated, drive a motor vehicle upon a public Highway, to-wit: the Montgomery-Birmingham Highway.'
The trial in the circuit court was by a jury who returned a verdict of guilty as charged and assessed a fine of $300. Defendant failing to pay the fine and costs or to confess judgment therefor, the court duly sentenced him to hard labor for the county to pay the fine and costs.
E. C. Knight, a highway patrolman, was the State's only witness. His testimony tended to show that he was called to the scene of an accident involving two automobiles, a Pontiac and a Dodge, on highway 31 in Shelby County. The witness did not see defendant driving at any time.
Over timely objection and exception of defendant, this witness was permitted to state that when he saw the defendant he was intoxicated or drunk and smelled of whiskey. This was error.
Evidence of defendant's drunken condition sometime after the alleged offense has been committed is not admissible, unless it is first shown that defendant had no access to intoxicating liquor in the meantime. Phillips v. State, 25 Ala.App. 286, 145 So 169; Rainey v. State, 31 Ala.App. 66, 12 So.2d 106.
After predicate was laid for the introduction of a confession, the witness was asked:
'
Defendant interposed a general objection, and on the further ground the corpus delicti had not been proved. The court overruled the objection and defendant excepted. The witness answered:
On cross examination this witness testified the accident occurred approximately 25 or 30 minutes prior to his arrival on the scene. On redirect examination he testified defendant told him it was his car and he was driving, and that he had been drinking all night the night before and all...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nagem v. City of Phenix City
...time may be held too remote unless it is first shown that he had no access to liquor in the meantime. Id. citing Gamble v. State, 36 Ala.App. 581, 60 So.2d 696 (1952); Phillips v. State, 25 Ala.App. 286, 145 So. 169 (1932)." E. Fisher and R. Reeder, Vehicle Traffic Law, p. 179 An accurate s......
-
Elmore v. State
...period before Deputies McCormick and McAfee arrived. Montgomery v. State, 44 Ala.App. 129, 203 So.2d 695 (1967). Gamble v. State, 36 Ala.App. 581, 60 So.2d 696 (1952), is not factually controlling in this instance. Thus, we hold the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in its resolution of issue......
-
Montgomery v. State
...time he was observed. Moates v. State, 40 Ala.App. 234, 115 So.2d 277; Blevins v. State, 38 Ala.App. 584, 90 So.2d 98; Gamble v. State, 36 Ala.App. 581, 60 So.2d 696; Rainey v. State, 31 Ala.App. 66, 12 So.2d 106; Phillips v. State, 25 Ala.App. 286, 145 So. 169; Turner v. State, 26 Ala.App.......
-
Roberson Motor Co. v. Heath
... ... 36 Ala.App. 578 ... ROBERSON MOTOR CO. et al ... 3 Div. 938 ... Court of Appeals of Alabama ... Oct. 7, 1952 ... 'The exception does not state or set out so much of the charge as was objectionable, but ... ...