Humphrey v. State

• Decision Date: 07 June 1921
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 770
• Citation: Humphrey v. State, 18 Ala.App. 251, 90 So. 504 (Ala. App. 1921)
• Parties: HUMPHREY v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

90 So. 504

18 Ala.App. 251

HUMPHREY v. STATE.

6 Div. 770

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 7, 1921

Rehearing Denied July 19, 1921

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; H.P. Heflin, Judge.

John Humphrey was convicted of buying, receiving, concealing etc., one hog of the value of $12, personal property of one R.S. Cross, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The facts on which the opinion is rested, sufficiently appear there from. Defendant was convicted on a charge of buying receiving or concealing stolen property, and from the judgment he appeals.

W.T Stewart, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD J.

On the trial and when the jurors were called to be selected to try this case, defendant's counsel requested the court to qualify the jurors by asking them this question, "Are you related to Moses Howard and Jim Dukes, witnesses for the state?" and stated to the court that he expected the evidence to show that the witnesses named had formed a conspiracy to convict the defendant, and for that reason he would like to know before the jurors were qualified and before they proceeded to strike the jury if any of the jurors were related to these parties.

It is, of course, the duty of the trial judge to see that the defendant is tried before a fair and an impartial jury, and it will be presumed that in this respect the trial court performed that duty, unless it clearly appear to the contrary. James' Case, 53 Ala. 381. But the defendant will not be permitted to speculate as to what the answers to questions will be, and in stating what the defendant expected the evidence to show it did not appear that defendant expected the answer of the jurors to show that they were related to the witnesses named, nor does it appear from the bill of exceptions that such was the case. As presented by the bill of exceptions, the court was not in error in sustaining the state's objection to the question asked.

The objection by defendant to the question asked by the solicitor, "Were any of your hogs that were marked that way stolen from you?" was objected to on the specific ground that it was leading. This waived other grounds of objection, and as to this ground the question was within the court's discretion.

After carefully reading the evidence, we are of the opinion that the trial court was correct in the ruling that there is evidence in the bill of exceptions tending to...