Hickman v. State
| Decision Date | 11 February 1915 |
| Citation | 12 Ala.App. 22,67 So. 775 |
| Parties | HICKMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.
Osband Hickman was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and he appeals. Affirmed.
W.W Sanders, of Elba, for appellant.
W.L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
It is an ancient rule of the law that a party cannot directly impeach the character of his own witness for the purpose of discrediting testimony given by the witness and with which the party is dissatisfied. The reason for this rule, that seems to have stood the test of time and experience, is that when a party offers a witness in proof of his cause he thereby, in general, represents him to be worthy of belief, and will not be allowed to assume the inconsistent attitude of saying that he is unworthy of belief. This rule, however, is not violated, if the witness proves to be hostile to the proponent, or by previous statements made by the witness he has been deceived or misled, and is surprised and placed at a disadvantage by unexpected answers, by allowing leading questions calling to the attention of the witness previous contradictory statements, even though an affirmance of such previous statements may have a tendency to affect the credibility of the witness. White v. State, 87 Ala. 26, 5 So. 829; Hemingway v. Garth, 51 Ala. 530; Thomas v. State, 117 Ala. 178, 23 So. 665; Schieffelin v. Schieffelin, 127 Ala. 35, 28 So. 687; Southern Bell Telephone Co. v. Mayo, 134 Ala. 645, 33 So. 16.
The witness Bama Rushing was the wife of the deceased and also the daughter of the defendant, and on her examination as a witness for the state testified, contrary to the state's theory of the case, that the deceased, after he had started home with witness, turned and said that he was going back and kill the defendant, and ran up the steps and struck at the defendant with his knife, and defendant shot him. Thereupon, in response to the question put by the solicitor, witness admitted that she had testified before the grand jury a few days before the trial and also admitted that she had had a conversation with the solicitor before she went on the stand. On this predicate the court, over the objection of the defendant, allowed the solicitor to ask the witness:
"Did you not testify, when you were before the grand jury, that Asbury (the deceased) started to your father and got on the steps, but that Asbury turned around and told your father that Bama (the witness) was in no condition for him to have a difficulty, and that he (deceased) then turned to go back to you, and that as he turned your father shot him?"
This question, under the rule above stated, was proper, and the court ruled correctly in allowing it. Lantern v. State, 1 Ala.App. 31, 55 So. 1032; Glenn v. State, 157 Ala. 12, 47 So. 1034; Thompson v. State, 99 Ala. 173, 13 So. 753; Billingslea v. State, 85 Ala. 325, 5 So. 137.
Nor is the rule in such case violated by allowing the proponent to show by the witness that the witness has "recently been brought under the influence of the other party."
"The weight of authority," says Greenleaf, "seems in favor of permitting the party to show that the evidence has taken him by surprise, and in contrary to the examination of the witness preparatory to the trial, or to what the party had reason to believe he would testify, or that the witness had recently been brought under the influence of the other party and has deceived the party calling him." 1 Green.Ev. § 444.
The above quotation from Greenleaf was cited with approval in Campbell v. State, 23 Ala. 77.
By a series of questions, the state was allowed to show that the witness Bama Rushing, on Sunday before the trial, went to the jail where her father was confined, with the other members of the family, and remained there one hour and a half; that witness and her father only spoke a few words, and nothing whatever was said about the case or what witness would testify on the trial. This evidence was admissible as having a tendency to show that the witness had recently been brought under the influence of the adverse party, and to strengthen the predicate that the witness was hostile to the state, and as justifying the leading questions allowed by the court. There would certainly have been no impropriety in allowing the state to offer this proof in laying the predicate, not for impeachment of the witness, but of showing hostility and surprise, and justifying leading questions embodying previous contrary statements to refresh the recollection and overcome lapses of memory possibly occasioned by the friendly relation of the witness with the defendant. The court kept within the rule already stated, and the appellant has no right to complain.
The predicate for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. State
...v. State, 130 Ala. 83, 30 So. 728; Harkness v. State, 129 Ala. 71, 30 So. 73; Hill v. State, 156 Ala. 3, 46 So. 864; Hickman v. State, 12 Ala. App. 22, 67 So. 775. declaration proved was a confession by defendant that he did the killing, and as such was material. While a confession is prima......
-
Arnold v. State
...ask the witness as to several matters sworn to by him before the grand jury. Glenn v. State, 157 Ala. 12, 47 So. 1034; Hickman v. State, 12 Ala. App. 22, 28, 67 So. 775. It is manifest that in this connection there was no by the state to impeach its own witness, as contended by appellant's ......
-
Jackson v. State
...have misunderstood the previous questions put to him, or to have suffered a lapse of memory from fear or other influence. Hickman v. State, 12 Ala. App. 22, 67 So. 775; White v. State, 87 Ala. 24, 5 So. In view of the evidence going to show that the culprit who held up and killed Smith wore......
-
Rogers v. State
...that the witness told the defendant of this conduct on the part of the deceased material. Allsup v. State, 72 So. 599; Hickman v. State, 12 Ala.App. 22, 67 So. 775; Smith v. State, 183 Ala. 10, 62 So. 864; v. State, 130 Ala. 99, 30 So. 394; Teague v. State, 144 Ala. 42, 40 So. 312. While th......