Hicks v. State

• Decision Date: 19 June 1912
• Citation: 59 So. 231,4 Ala.App. 120
• Parties: HICKS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

59 So. 231

4 Ala.App. 120

HICKS v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 19, 1912

Appeal from City Court of Andalusia; A. L. Rankin, Judge.

John Hicks was convicted of carrying a concealed pistol, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The charges requested by the defendant are as follows:

(1) "The law presumes this defendant innocent; this presumption of innocence is thrown around this defendant on this trial, and is to so remain until the state has proven from all the evidence, and beyond all reasonable doubt, his guilt, and this presumption of innocence is to be regarded by you and considered with all the other evidence; and every reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant, as charged in the affidavit in this case made by the state's witness J C. Worley, must be resolved in favor of the defendant."

(2) "If the jury is reasonably satisfied from all the evidence that the witness J. C. Worley, for the state, made the statement to the witness Wood that the defendant did not have a pistol, but a bicycle pump, then you may consider the same; and if, from all the evidence in this case, you are reasonably satisfied that such witness for the state has testified in this case as to any material facts incorrectly and untruly, then you may disregard the evidence in his case in your discretion."

A Whaley, of Andalusia, for appellant.

R. C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PELHAM J.

The defendant was tried and convicted of carrying a pistol concealed about his person. J. C. Worley, one of the principal witnesses against the defendant, testified to facts showing the guilt of the accused. The defendant examined as a witness in his behalf one Ben Adams, and undertook to show by Adams the state of feeling existing between the witness J. C. Worley and the defendant. The solicitor interposed objections, and the court sustained the state's objection and refused to allow the defendant to prove by the witness the state of feeling existing between Worley and the defendant. In this the court was in error. The defendant had a right to prove the state of feeling, for the purpose of showing bias or ill will. Henry v. State, 79 Ala. 42; McHugh v. State, 31 Ala. 317; Jones v. State, 76 Ala. 8; Polk v. State, 62 Ala. 237; Fincher v. State, 58 Ala. 215; Lodge v. State, 122 Ala. 97, 26 So. 210, 82 Am. St. Rep. 23.

The other rulings on the evidence are free from error,...