Hill v. State
| Decision Date | 07 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 808 |
| Citation | 90 So. 62,18 Ala.App. 172 |
| Parties | HILL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; C.P. Almon, Judge.
Hubert Hill was convicted of manufacturing prohibited liquor, and he appealed. Affirmed.
The facts on which the opinion is rested sufficiently appear therefrom.
Mitchell & Hughston, of Florence, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This appeal is from a judgment of conviction for the violation of section 15 of the law known as the "bone day law." Laws 1919, p. 6. The indictment was not challenged by demurrer; no exceptions were reserved to the court's oral charge; the affirmative charge was not requested, nor was there any motion for a new trial made. All the special charges requested by defendant were given. The appeal is predicated upon the rulings of the court upon the testimony and these are the only questions presented for review.
The court sustained the state's objections to each of the following questions propounded to defendant's witness Clyde Tidwell, on direct examination:
(1) "How did he (defendant) happen to go over there?" (2) "Where had Hubert Hill (defendant) started?" (3) "How did he (defendant) happen or anybody happen to roll any barrels down the hill?"
Each of these questions were so patently objectionable it needs no discussion to justify the court's rulings in sustaining the state's objection. They call for the uncommunicated purpose or intention of the defendant, as well as for the conclusion of the witness; moreover, the evidence thus sought to be adduced was irrelevant and incompetent, and therefore illegal and inadmissible.
On recross-examination of witness Bennie Harden, he testified:
Thereupon on redirect examination the defendant propounded this question, "What was it that you did tell him?" The court properly sustained the state's objection to this question, for the reason that, at this stage of the evidence the testimony of this witness had not been disputed and no effort had been made to show that said witness had made the statements inquired about; nor was there any effort afterwards to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hembree v. State
... ... state of another is rejected where it is conceived rather ... than perceived, and we are not able to say that the statement ... that defendant was "just wild" was based upon ... witness' perception rather than conception. Moore v ... State, 16 Ala. App. 503, 79 So. 201; Hill v ... State, 18 Ala. App. 172, 90 So. 62; Bell v ... State, 140 Ala. 57, 37 So. 281 ... Mrs ... Matilda Latham, a witness for the state, testified over ... objection of the defendant, that on the afternoon before the ... killing took place and as the deceased was leaving his ... ...
- State v. Stone
-
Prescott v. State
...on a question not then being litigated, as to which a witness may not testify. Hembree v. State (Ala.App.) 101 So. 221; Hill v. State, 18 Ala.App. 172, 90 So. 62. On cross-examination of Homer Prescott, son of one of the defendants, he was asked: "The officers went there to your place one t......
-
Ford v. State
...here. It was not competent for the defendant to ask state witness Hunt on cross-examination, "Did you mean what you said?" Hill v. State, 18 Ala.App. 172, 90 So. 62. We examined all of the objections made and exceptions reserved by defendant to, and on account of, questions propounded to wi......