Harwell v. State
| Decision Date | 05 February 1914 |
| Docket Number | 132 |
| Citation | 11 Ala.App. 188,65 So. 702 |
| Parties | HARWELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
On Application for Rehearing, June 20, 1914
Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; Armstead Brown, Judge.
James L. Harwell was convicted of a violation of the liquor law and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
W.H. & J.R. Thomas and W.R. Brassell, all of Montgomery, for appellant.
R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The first witness for the state was Lewis Stanford, who testified as to the purchase by him of some whisky from the defendant. On the cross-examination of this witness he stated that he bought the whisky from the defendant under instructions from one McCord, who subsequently was a witness against the defendant and stated as to himself that he was officially connected with the excise commission of the city of Montgomery and that his business was to run down blind tigers. After Stanford had, in somewhat evasive answers to questions asked on his cross-examination as to the nature of his employment by McCord, stated that McCord had not paid him specially for buying the whisky from the defendant, he was asked, "What is he to pay you for it?" The defendant duly excepted to the action of the court in sustaining the solicitor's objection to this question. We are of opinion that the question was one which the court should have allowed to be answered. On the cross-examination of the witness the defendant was entitled to bring out any fact having a tendency to impeach his impartiality. It is not to be denied that the jury, in determining whether or not the witness was under the influence of a bias that might affect the weight to be accorded to his testimony, should have been permitted to look, not only to the fact that he had been employed to obtain incriminating evidence against the defendant, but to the amount of compensation he expected to receive for the service rendered by him in that regard. Southern Railway Co. v. Crowder, 130 Ala. 256, 30 So. 592; Jones on Evidence, § 828.
The court was not in error in sustaining the objection of the solicitor to the question asked the state's witness Molton on his cross-examination, "You have been on the chain gang, haven't you?" An obvious purpose of the question was to elicit an admission by the witness of a fact from which his conviction of a criminal offense might be inferred. The conviction, touching which a witness may be examined is one of a crime that is infamous. Code, §§ 4008 4009; Williams v. State, 144 Ala. 14, 40 So. 408. The question objected to was too general, as from the witness' affirmative answer to it it might have been inferred that he had been convicted of some offense, whether infamous in its nature or not. The defendant was not entitled to require the witness to testify as to his conviction of an offense his guilt of which would not affect the competency or credibility of his testimony.
Each of the three counts of the indictment charged the defendant with selling prohibited liquor. In a trial on such an indictment the defendant is not entitled to have the state limited to evidence as to one such sale. Shivers v. State, 7 Ala.App. 110, 61 So. 467; Loudermilk v. State, 4 Ala.App. 167, 58 So. 180.
The bill of exceptions shows that, after the jurors had retired to consider their verdict and upon their return to the courtroom before a verdict had been agreed upon, the presiding judge had some communication with them in reference to the case while the defendant and his counsel were not present. As the judgment appealed from must be reversed because of the error above pointed out, it is not necessary to determine whether or not this incident has properly been presented for review, or to say more of it than that a trial court should refrain from having any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickey v. State
...the right of the defendant to show that such contributions were made by the witness, but the amount contributed as well ( Harwell v. State, 11 Ala.App. 188, 65 So. 702); if, as an official of the town of New Hope, the witness participated in making a contribution for the special purpose of ......
-
Brown v. Pittsburgh Life & Trust Co.
... ... Sp.Sess.1909, p. 337), among other things, thus provides: ... "Every insurance company, domestic or foreign, doing ... business in this state, when filing statement as required by ... section 4556 of this Code shall at the same time pay to the ... Insurance Commissioner the following ... ...
-
Walker v. State
...41, 29 So. 929; Pettus v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 214 Ala. 187, 106 So. 807; Whitehurst v. State, 3 Ala. App. 88, 57 So. 1026; Harwell v. State, 11 Ala. App. 188, 65 So. 702; McNeil v. State, 47 Ala. With respect to the instructions given the jury in the absence of defendant's counsel, the recor......
-
State v. Johnson, 72--998
...and the information had been dismissed.4 Ibid.5 E.g. Commonwealth v. Farrell, 1898, 187 Pa. 408, 41 A. 382, 384; Harwell v. State, 1914, 11 Ala.App. 188, 65 So. 702, 703; Wheeler v. United States, 1 Cir. 1965, 351 F.2d 946, 947; State v. Carroll, 1892, 85 Iowa 1, 51 N.W. 1159; Harrison v. S......