Holland v. State, 4 Div. 913.
| Decision Date | 24 May 1932 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 913. |
| Parties | HOLLAND v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Geneva County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.
Carson Holland was convicted of assault and battery, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
R. S Ward, of Hartford, and O. S. Lewis, of Dothan, for appellant.
Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jas. L Screws, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of assault and battery, and his punishment fixed at the assessment of a fine against him of $300. Code 1923, § 3299.
The theory of the state, as we gather, is that the assault and battery were committed upon the person of one John C. Hughes a deputy sheriff, who was, at the time, undertaking to arrest appellant, without a warrant, for the offense of public drunkenness (Code 1923, § 3883) being committed in the presence of said officer (Code 1923, § 3263).
Appellant strenuously denied that he was drunk, etc., at the time, and denied assaulting, etc., said Hughes.
Hughes' testimony that appellant was drunk, etc., at the time in question, together with appellant's that he was not presented one of the material conflicts in the testimony upon the trial-obviously, and perhaps we ought to say as the learned trial judge charged the jury trying the case.
The jury were entitled to hear any testimony which "conduces (conduced) in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in controversy." 2 Jones on Evidence (2d Ed.) pp. 1086 and 1115. See, also, 22 Corpus Juris 167, and George D. Witt Shoe Co. v. Mills (Ala. Sup.) 140 So. 578, from the opinion in which we take the quotation.
Here, appellant offered to show, as by way of impeachment of the testimony of Hughes, and by his cross-examination, that no prosecution was instituted, or instigated, by him, against appellant, for the said offense of public drunkenness, etc. This testimony was, upon the State's objection, rejected.
While we do not observe any statutory command to that effect, yet it seems clearly to be contemplated that, when an arrest is made by an officer under the power with which he is clothed by section 3263 of the Code, he shall, in the absence of some reasonable explanation, follow same up by the institution, or, certainly, instigation, of a proper prosecution against the person so arrested. And his failure to do so may fairly be considered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forbus v. Cobb Bros. Const. Co.
...by his testimony should have been submitted to the jury even if it should be regarded effective. Rowe v. State, 163 So. 22; Holland v. State, 142 So. 112; Jones on Evidence (2 Ed.), pages 1086 and 1115; Merchants Co. v. Tracy, 166 So. 340; Southern Bell Telephone Co. v. Quick, 149 So. 107; ......
-
Sims v. Struthers
...that he made no note of skid marks on the diagram; he had merely stated that he 'didn't believe' he had made such a note. Holland v. State, 25 Ala.App. 147, 142 So. 112, syl. 2-3; Marsh v. State, 16 Ala.App. 597, 80 So. 171, syl. 3, certiorari denied Ex parte Marsh, 203 Ala. 699, 83 So. 927......
-
Bridges v. State
...testimony tending reasonably to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in controversy is admissible. Holland v. State, 25 Ala.App. 147, 142 So. 112 (1932). The test of probative value or relevancy of a fact is whether it has any tendency to throw light upon the matter in issue......
-
Tate v. State
...testimony tending reasonably to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in controversy is admissible. Holland v. State, 25 Ala.App. 147, 142 So. 112 (1932). The test of probative value or relevancy of a fact is whether it has any tendency to throw light upon the matter in issue......