Gladden v. State
| Decision Date | 02 August 1951 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 151 |
| Citation | 36 Ala.App. 197,54 So.2d 607 |
| Parties | GLADDEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Keener & Keener, Centre, for appellant.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and A. A. Carmichael, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This appellant's jury trial on an affidavit charging him with operating a motor vehicle on a public highway while drunk resulted in a verdict of guilty.
The evidence presented by the State consisted of the testimony of C. M. Garrett, Sheriff of Cherokee County, and C. R. Hurley, a deputy sheriff of said county.
These officers testified that as they were driving down a state highway in Cherokee County, at a speed of about forty miles per hour, they met two cars. One was driven by the appellant. This car was driven in a 'wabbly' manner, and it was necessary for the Sheriff to drive his vehicle partly off the highway to avoid a collision.
The officers immediately turned their car around and pursued the two other vehicles. They stopped these cars, with their vehicle being between the two pursued automobiles.
Two boys jumped out of one of the automobiles, and the officers chased them. During this time appellant drove his car down a side road about 200 yards, got out and walked back toward the Sheriff's automobile. He was met by the officers and placed under arrest.
Both officers testified that all of the above transactions occurred within a space of from five to ten minutes.
Sheriff Garrett testified without objection that he observed the appellant as he drove the automobile and that he was drunk, and that he was drunk when he was arrested some five or ten minutes later.
Over appellant's objection that it was not a part of the res gestae Deputy Hurley was permitted to testify that the appellant was drunk at the time he was arrested.
Also, over appellant's objections, on the ground that the witness was not qualified by observation or knowledge, this witness testified that in his opinion the appellant was drunk when he saw him driving on the highway.
On cross examination Hurley testified that he saw the appellant as he approached the officers' automobile; that appellant's vehicle went from one side of the road to the other, and that the Sheriff had to drive partly off the road to avoid a collision; that while he did not recognize the appellant at the moment, he did see him, and formed his opinion as to appellant's condition at this time on the few seconds that he observed him driving.
Appellant thereupon moved to exclude Hurley's testimony as to appellant's condition at the time he was driving on the highway. This motion was denied by the court.
It appears to be the rule in this jurisdiction that where it is proper to permit non expert opinion evidence, the witness may state his opinion without first detailing the facts on which he bases such opinion, where the matter testified about is not of a complex nature. Intoxication is such a matter. Dozier v. State, 130 Ala. 57, 30 So. 396; May v. State, 167 Ala. 36, 52 So. 602; Ballard v. State, 25 Ala.App. 457, 148 So. 752; Pierson v. State, 31 Ala.App. 452, 18 So.2d 578.
All testimony must be based on a witness' observation of the matter about which he is testifying. Where in a proper case a non expert is permitted to give opinion evidence, and cross examination discloses that his apportunity for observation was insufficient to afford any reasonable basis for the conclusion expressed, his opinion testimony should be excluded on motion. Where however an opportunity for observation is shown, even though slight, a witness should be considered competent to testify as to what he did observe. Certainly we know of no way to measure a witness' capacity for observation, other than as it may be determined by a jury which hears the testimony tending to show its strength or weakness on the facts developed from examination of the witness. When such facts are shown the weight of such testimony is for the jury.
The court therefore did not err in denying the motion to exclude the testimony of the witness Hurley as to appellant's condition of sobriety at the time he observed him driving on the highway.
Likewise the court did not err in overruling ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Sahley v. Thompson
...constitution).' To similar effect are: Kreulhaus v. City of Birmingham, 164 Ala. 623, 51 So. 297, 26 L.R.A.,N.S., 492; Gladden v. State, 36 Ala.App. 197, 54 So.2d 607; State v. Van Brocklin, 194 Wis. 441, 217 N.W. 277; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 318; 4 Am.Jur., Arrest, § 9; 10 Am.Jur., Clerks......
-
Jolly v. State
...that any witness who is asked to express an opinion as to accused's intoxication is properly qualified." See also Gladden v. State, 36 Ala.App. 197, 54 So.2d 607, cert. denied, 256 Ala. 368, 54 So.2d 610 Whether or not the qualification of a witness to state his opinion is sufficiently esta......
-
State v. Furmage
...is in no sense a final adjudication. Kreulhaus v. City of Birmingham, 164 Ala. 623, 51 So. 297, 26 L.R.A., N.S., 492; Gladden v. State, 36 Ala.App. 197, 54 So.2d 607; State v. Van Brocklin, 194 Wis. 441, 217 N.W. In Holloman v. State, 37 Ala.App. 599, 74 So.2d 612, 614, the warrant was issu......
-
Nagem v. City of Phenix City
...743, 746, 267 So.2d 533 (1972) (fifteen minutes where driver "effectively trapped" in car containing no alcohol); Gladden v. State, 36 Ala.App. 197, 199, 54 So.2d 607, cert. denied, 256 Ala. 368, 54 So.2d 610 (1951) (five or ten minutes was "not sufficient intervention of time from the main......