Hall v. State

• Decision Date: 11 June 1903
• Citation: 137 Ala. 44,34 So. 680
• Parties: HALL v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

34 So. 680

137 Ala. 44

HALL v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 11, 1903

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; Dan'l A. Greene Judge.

Felix Hall was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

Defendant called W. D. Parris, the coroner who held the inquest over the body of the person killed, as a witness, and asked him the following questions: "Was it not a fact that the evidence brought out before you at the inquest tended to show that Jim Clark had something to do with the killing?" "Did not the evidence there tend to show that Jim Clark had been in Atlanta on a visit, and when he came back some one told him that defendant had had something to do with his wife, and he [Clark] said he would get him [[[defendant]?" "Did Clark's wife testify that she was in or out of tent at time of shooting?" "Is it not a fact that she testified that she was out of the tent at the time of shooting?" "Did you not during last summer accompany some man to the jail to identify the defendant?" "Did you not accompany a man, who said he was the prosecuting witness, to identify the defendant?" "Did the evidence at the inquest tend to show that there had been trouble between the defendant and Jim Clark about Clark's wife?" To each of these questions the state separately objected, the court sustained each of such objections, and defendant separately excepted.

Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

TYSON J.

While it is always competent to show the bias of a witness by proving that he sustains such a relation to a party as would likely influence his testimony, this rule cannot be stretched to the extent of allowing a defendant to show that a witness for the state is the husband of the washerwoman of the deceased.

The fact that Jim Clark and Annie Clark, who were husband and wife, both of whom were examined as witnesses by the prosecution, had a difficulty on the day the homicide was committed, could shed no light upon the issues involved in this case. That fact was wholly irrelevant and inadmissible and the action of the court in sustaining the objection to the question which sought to elicit it was properly sustained.

"When witnesses are placed under the rule, it is discretionary with the presiding judge to permit exceptions to its enforcement." Riley v. State, 88 Ala. 193, 7 So. 149; McGuff v. State, 88 Ala. 147, 7 So. 35, 16 Am. St. Rep. 25; Barnes v. State, 88 Ala. 204, 7 So....