Ingram v. State, 8 Div. 683
| Citation | 66 So.2d 843,259 Ala. 324 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 683 |
| Parties | INGRAM v. STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Bradshaw, Barnett & Haltom and E. B. Haltom, Jr., Florence, for petitioner.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Arthur Joe Grant, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of buying, receiving, concealing, etc., stolen property, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The property involved was two automobile tires which defendant claimed were in the back of his garage when he was detained by the city police officers for questioning. His defense was that he had received the tires from one Coman, who had pawned them to him for a week for $20; that he had set them in the back room of his cafe and when Coman failed to redeem them he took them home and set them in his garage by the door. Coman had stolen the tires from H & H Tire Company, where he was employed, confessed his crime and testified that he had sold the tires to the defendant for $15 each. Hence the defense of appellant that he had received the tires in good faith without knowledge that they had been stolen, had not purchased them but had merely received them in pawn for the loan he made to Coman.
The only proposition meriting consideration relates to the cross-examination of one of the State's witnesses, police officer Anderson, who, in company with another officer, Pigg, went with the defendant to his home to obtain the tires after being questioned at the police station. Officer Anderson testified for the State that on that trip, while in the police car, defendant made a statement. We quote from the opinion of the Court of Appeals:
'Officer Anderson was asked, without objection, on direct examination, this question:
The witness answered:
'On cross examination, and several questions later, this witness was asked: '
This court entertains the view that the ruling above was laid in error and violated the familiar rule that where one party brings out a part of a transaction or conversation on examination of a witness, the other party has a right on cross-examination to show the entire transaction or conversation. Ala.Digest, Crim.Law, k396(2).
In justifying its conclusion that no error prevailed in the stated ruling, the opinion of the Court of Appeals observed:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Esdale v. State
...of the point in question, may be examined by the reviewing court for a complete understanding of the issue involved. Ingram v. State, Ala.Sup., 66 So.2d 843. John E. Ballenger Const. Co. v. Joe F. Walters Const. Co., supra (2); State ex rel. Levine v. Trimble, 320 Mo. 526, 8 S.W.2d 927; Sta......
-
Hill v. State
...decisions collated in Vol. 9, Alabama Digest, Criminal Law, k4157(1). Neither can such impeachment be shown by affidavit. Ingram v. State, 259 Ala. 324, 66 So.2d 843. Jurors may not impeach their verdict by disclosing deliberations. Webb v. State, 26 Ala.App. 241, 157 So. The trial court er......
-
Grayson v. Stone, 1 Div. 561
... ... The Act fixed $7,500 for each such judge payable out of the state treasury. It then provided that in circuits as described the amount so fixed should be supplemented ... by the county in amounts regulated by the ... ...
-
Snider v. State
...v. State, 22 Ala.App. 146, 113 So. 625; Ingram v. State, 37 Ala.App. 273, 66 So.2d 839, certiorari granted on other grounds 259 Ala. 324, 66 So.2d 843. The question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment was not presented by motion to exclude the evidence, request for th......