Hardaman v. State
| Decision Date | 12 February 1918 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 472 |
| Citation | 78 So. 324,16 Ala.App. 408 |
| Parties | HARDAMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
On Rehearing, February 26, 1918
On Rehearing.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.C.B. Gwin, Judge.
Bob Hardaman was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and appeals. Reversed, and cause remanded.
Pinkney Scott, of Bessemer, for appellant.
F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and David W.W. Fuller, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
On the trial, the state, over the objection and exception of the defendant, admitted secondary evidence of the testimony of a state's witness, who had been examined as a witness on a former trial of the same case, but who was not present on the present trial. It has been frequently held by the courts of this state that if a witness, who has been examined in a criminal case before a tribunal of competent jurisdiction, is not subsequently, after diligent search, found within the jurisdiction of the court, it is admissible to prove the testimony he formerly gave. Percy v. State, 125 Ala 53, 27 So. 844. The predicate for this must be shown to the court by competent evidence, and if in hearing this question there was incompetent evidence introduced along with other evidence which was sufficient of itself to establish the predicate, the action of the court in admitting such incompetent evidence would not authorize a reversal. Jacobi v. State, 133 Ala. 16, 17, 32 So. 158. It was shown that the absent witness had lived in the county and community. It was not shown that he had ever lived at any other place in the state, or had any business to call him elsewhere in the state; he was present at the former trial he declared to numerous persons his intention to join the United States army, to be sent to Georgia; he disappeared from the community, and his former friends and associates saw him no more; the deputy sheriff says he sought him diligently on two occasions, when he had papers to serve on him, and he could not be found; the subpoena docket showed two subpoenas returned not found. The statements of his intentions were competent and admissible. Jacobi v. State, supra. Every reasonable presumption is indulged in favor of the finding of the trial court on a question of this kind. Harwell v. State, 12 Ala.App. 265, 68 So. 500. Under all the facts, we cannot say that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony. Harwell v. State, 12 Ala.App. 265, 68 So. 500; Pope v. State, 183 Ala. 61; Jacobi v. State, 133 Ala. 1, 32 So. 158.
The theory of the state was that the motive for the killing was that the defendant might retain a large quantity of whisky which had been secreted on defendant's place by the deceased, and for that purpose, and as tending to show motive, the state was permitted to prove, over the objection of the defendant, that at the time of the killing the deceased had secreted under defendant's house, with the knowledge and consent of defendant, several barrels of whisky. Any testimony which can furnish aid to the jury in determining the issue, or which sheds light on the transaction, is competent. Redd v. State, 68 Ala. 492. And where a crime is shown to have been committed, and the circumstances point to the accused as the guilty agent, proof of a motive, although weak and inconclusive, is nevertheless admissible. Overstreet v. State, 46 Ala. 30.
It having been shown that the deceased was shot with a bullet, it was relevant evidence that the defendant was carrying a rifle at the time he went down the road, shortly before the shooting, and the fact that he carried the rifle at other times, while immaterial, was without injury.
While it was error for the solicitor to ask the witness Hickman as to the character of defendant, without having laid a proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnold v. State
... ... the substantial rights of the defendant, and was calculated ... to prejudice the minds of the jury against him, cannot be ... doubted. This being true, it was irrelevant and inadmissible, ... and under the following authorities the court's ruling ... must be adjudged error: Hardaman v. State, 16 Ala ... App. 408, 78 So. 324 (on rehearing). Martin v ... State, 16 Ala. App. 406, 78 So. 322; Johnson's Case, ... 201 Ala. 41, 77 So. 335, 6 A. L. R. 1031; Jones v ... State, 17 Ala. App. 394, 85 So. 830; Dennison v ... State, 17 Ala. App. 674, 88 So. 211; Madry v ... ...
-
Hardaman v. State
...Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. BROWN, P.J. This is the third appeal in this case. Hardaman v. State, 14 Ala.App. 27, 70 So. 961; s.c., 78 So. 324. Some of questions now presented were treated on the last appeal, and we shall not treat them again. The original subpoena docket kept by the c......
-
Bray v. State
...and declarations attending the occasion, and all such evidence was admissible. Jacobi v. State, 133 Ala. 1, 32 So. 158; Hardaman v. State, 78 So. 324; Holton v. Ala. Mid. R.R., 97 Ala. 275, 12 So. The predicate essential to render the inculpatory statements of the defendant made to the offi......
-
Harris v. Wright
...132 So. 601. The cases of People v. Riggins, 159 Cal. 113, 112 P. 862; Smith v. State, 140 Ga. 791, 79 S.E. 1127, and Hardaman v. State, 16 Ala. App. 408, 78 So. 324, not support appellant's insistence. They each relate to defendant's possession of a weapon some time after the homicide, and......