Graham v. State
| Decision Date | 01 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 501. |
| Citation | 25 Ala.App. 44,140 So. 621 |
| Parties | GRAHAM v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied March 22, 1932.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.
Oscar Graham was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree and he appeals.
Affirmed.
J. A Lusk, of Guntersville, and W. T. Starnes, of Pell City, for appellant.
Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was indicted and charged with the killing of Eggleston Dale by running against him with an automobile. The evidence for the state tended to prove a case of involuntary manslaughter of which defendant was convicted.
One of the circumstances sought to be proved by the state was that the defendant was, at the time of the accident, driving an automobile while intoxicated or drunk. One of the state's witnesses offered to prove these facts was L. B. Pike, who testified: That he remembered about the collision in question; that it was about 9 o'clock at night; that he was traveling along the highway on which the collision occurred and met a car in the road going in the direction of the place where the collision happened; that he met only one car. From this point the witness was allowed to testify, over proper objections and exceptions, that he did not know the defendant's car. He could not tell whose it was; that it was a green Chevrolet; that he heard of the wreck on that same night; that the car was traveling about sixty or sixty-five miles an hour; that it was first on one side of the road and then on the other; that he (witness) just pulled out and stopped; that he pulled out and stopped before the car got to him; that he was at that time sixty or seventy-five yards from the car; that he stopped off of the pavement; that the car described was the only car he passed between where the wreck occurred and the intersection of the Mill Village street with the highway; that, when he met the car, it was about one-quarter of a mile from the wreck. Thereupon the court said: "Solicitor, I am inclined to let this testimony go out." The solicitor said "The defendant himself says he passed a car right at this place." The court said:
There was other testimony identifying the time and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peabody
...is erroneously stricken, because the striking of such evidence could not injuriously affect the defendant's rights. Graham v. State, 25 Ala.App. 44, 140 So. 621 (1932). As the Missouri Court put '(T)he error was in defendant's favor and against the State. So defendant cannot be heard to com......
-
State v. Gagnon
...he was entitled. State v. Peabody, Me., 320 A.2d 242, 244 (1974); State v. Foster, 490 S.W.2d 662, 663 (Mo.App.1973); Graham v. State, 25 Ala.App. 44, 140 So. 621 (1932). See also, Zimberg v. United States, 142 F.2d 132, 136-137 (1st Cir. 1944). Sufficiency of the Evidence The defendant con......
-
Holmes v. State
...The court held that based upon this continuous perception the testimony had probative value. In a criminal case, Graham v. State, 25 Ala.App. 44, 140 So. 621, this court, per Sanford, J., held that error, if any, in admitting evidence (among other things) of speed at a point one-fourth mile......
-
Roden v. State, 8 Div. 140
...46 A.L.R.2d 77, Sec. 19. This testimony was not inadmissible because he could not tell who was driving the automobile. Graham v. State, 25 Ala.App. 44, 140 So. 621. The officers arrived at the scene promptly after the accident. Several pictures were taken by one of them before the body of d......