Green v. State
| Citation | 11 So. 478,96 Ala. 29 |
| Parties | GREEN v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 27 July 1892 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Sumter county; S. H. SPROTT, Judge.
Steptoe Green, having been convicted for the murder of Harriett Marr appeals. Reversed.
The state's testimony tended to prove that while the deceased and her daughter, Emma Marr, and defendant were on the road to Livingston, near the five-mile post, the deceased and the defendant got into a quarrel; that the defendant struck the deceased, who said she was going to have him arrested; and that, as the deceased started off, the defendant followed her; and that, shortly after, blows were heard in the direction in which the deceased and the defendant went. Emma Marr testified that as she was coming some distance behind the deceased and the defendant she heard her mother say "Don't kill me;" and then she heard her say "Run here, babe; I'm 'most gone." That she went as fast as she could, and that when she got near the ravine she met the defendant coming out of the ravine with a knife in his hand, and the knife was bloody. That she asked him if he had killed her mother, and he said, "Yes, and I will kill you if you ever tell it." The testimony further tended to show that the defendant buried the body of Harriett Marr at the place where he killed her, and afterwards disinterred it, and reburied it at another place.
Upon the examination of Barney O'Neal, a son of Harriett Marr as a witness for the state, the solicitor asked him the following question: "During the search for the body of Harriett Marr, did you find a place in the Cockerell field where some person had been buried, and, if so, what was the evidence of the burial of such person?" To this question the defendant objected, on the ground that the answer sought to be elicited thereby was irrelevant. The court overruled this objection, and the witness then answered that he saw signs of fresh earth having been dug up, and that, digging down into the earth, he found blood and maggots, and a part of an underskirt which belonged to his mother, and which she wore the day she was murdered. The defendant moved to exclude this evidence on the ground that it was irrelevant, and duly excepted to the overruling of his said motion.
Smith, Van Degraaf & Travis, for appellant.
Wm. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted of the murder of Harriett Marr, and sentenced to be hung. The case is brought here for review of the ruling of the trial court upon the admission of certain testimony. The witness Armistead Gray was asked, "Do you know the place where Harriett Marr was said to have been killed?" The witness answered he did. Both the question and answer were objected to. Prima facie, it may be both the question and answer were objectionable. It is permissible-in fact, unavoidable-sometimes to propound a question prima facie objectionable, when it is merely introductory to other questions, necessary to elicit fact which are legal evidence. Whenever it is subsequently shown that the apparent illegal evidence is a connecting part of, or explanatory of, legal evidence, and was only used as necessarily introductory thereto, an objection to it cannot be sustained. But unless its admission is justified by subsequent testimony, or is afterwards excluded from the jury by the court, it is reversible error. The only other question propounded to this witness contains the same objectionable expression, "Where did Tillman Autrey live at the time Harriett Marr is said to have been killed?" Both these questions and answers were calculated to impress the jury with the impression as a fact proven that Harriett Marr was killed, and at a certain place. It was necessary for the state to prove by legal evidence that Harriett Marr was killed. If it had been conceded by the defendant that Harriett Marr was killed, and at the certain place referred to, perhaps it would have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
... ... this court that the testimony of a witness cannot be ... corroborated by proof of his declarations or acts. In ... Shamberger v. State, 221 Ala. 538, 539, 130 So. 70, ... 71, it is declared: "We are constrained to hold that ... these rulings were error to reverse. In Green v ... State, 96 Ala. 29, 11 So. 478, 479, the court said: ... 'A witness cannot corroborate himself by introducing ... other witnesses to prove that he made the same statement to ... them to which he deposed, * * *."' ... To the ... same effect are Key v. State, 240 Ala. 1, 197 ... ...
-
Ex parte Windsor
...the witness... could testify just as to any other fact." Key v. State, 240 Ala. 19, 20, 197 So. 364 (1940), relying on Green v. State, 96 Ala. 29, 11 So. 478 (1891); see also State v. Wilson, 38 Wash.2d 593, 231 P.2d 288, cert. denied, 342 U.S. 855, 72 S.Ct. 81, 96 L.Ed. 644 Ferguson v. Sta......
-
Gafford v. State
... ... upon the feelings and vindictive passions of the prisoner and ... the deceased towards one another; and, second, the mode and ... manner in which these feelings and passions were brought to ... bear in producing the catastrophe so much deplored." And ... in Green v. State, 69 Ala. 9, this court said: ... "There being ground for argument, at least, that the ... deceased must have taken some action in the matter of drawing ... his pistol before the accused fired, this lets in the threat ... the witness testified the deceased made *** shortly before ... ...
-
Pruitt v. State, 8 Div. 692
...that he made statements to others similar to those testified to by him" (James et al. v. State, 115 Ala. 83, 22 So. 565; Green v. State, 96 Ala. 29, 11 So. 478), grows out of the necessity of the case. At this point it should be borne in mind that interpreters are sworn as other witnesses; ......