Jimmerson v. State
| Decision Date | 29 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 627 |
| Citation | 86 So. 153,17 Ala.App. 552 |
| Parties | JIMMERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J.S. Williams, Judge.
Tom Jimmerson was convicted of manufacturing prohibited liquors and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
McDowell & McDowell, of Eufaula, for appellant.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The questions raised on this appeal relate solely to the rulings of the court upon the evidence, and upon the refusal of the court to give the general affirmative charge at the request of the defendant. Under the evidence, the court properly refused to give this charge.
Witness for the state, G.W. Walker, testified that he saw the defendant in the act of making whisky and that at the time he saw him no one was present except the defendant, Walker, the witness, and H.P. Walker, his son. The younger Walker was not present at the time of the trial, and over the objection and exception of defendant the solicitor was permitted to ask Walker on direct examination, "Do you know why he is not here?" and the witness was permitted to answer, "He is sick." The solicitor then stated, "He is sick and unable to come to court, is he?" Witness answered "No, sir." Const.1901, § 6, provides, among other things, that in all criminal prosecutions the accused has a right to be confronted by the witness against him, etc. The issues, therefore, must be tried upon the testimony adduced at the trial of a case, and not upon what might have been brought out if other witnesses were present. Moreover, there was nothing here to show that H.P. Walker had been subpoenaed as a witness in this case; but, even if he had been, it was clearly immaterial as a consequence whether he was absent, nor was the cause of his absence a relevant matter. We think the insistence of defendant's counsel that the only purpose of this testimony was to bolster up the testimony of the elder Walker, and to convey the impression to the jury that if said witness was present his testimony would have been the same as that of his father. We are of the opinion that the objections were well taken, and should have been sustained.
Aaron Free testified that he had known defendant for 25 or 30 years, and that his general character was good. On cross-examination of this witness the solicitor was permitted to ask the witness, among other things, "Don't you know a committee of citizens down there went to Tom Jimmerson to try to get him to stop making it?" The objection to the question was overruled, and defendant excepted. It is difficult to understand upon what theory the court allowed this question. That the ruling of the court was manifest error needs no discussion. The same may be said of the cross-examination of witness John Richards. Over the objection and exception of defendant, the solicitor was permitted to ask this witness, "You were not on a committee that went to see him about it, were you?" and in reply thereto, when required to answer, the witness said, "That committee did not specify no certain fellow." Thereupon the solicitor said, "I am not talking about the article that appeared in the paper; I am talking about a committee of citizens down there that went to him and asked him to stop it." This kind of examination was highly improper, and the court erred in allowing it. And, further, on cross-examination of this witness the state was permitted to prove "that he knew Mr. Walker, the state's witness; that he knew his character, that it is good; that he is a good citizen, and is a man who would tell the truth." At the time Walker's testimony had not even been contradicted, and there had been no effort to attack his character, or to impeach the witness in any other manner, nor was such effort made during the entire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowery v. State
...'In recognition of the above stated principle and rule, Judge Bricken, presiding judge of this court, in the case of Jimmerson v. State, 17 Ala.App. 552, 86 So. 153, 154, said: 'The general rule is that character, whether good or bad, can only be proved by general reputation and evidence of......
-
Mullins v. State
... ... unfair and harmful issues that are foreign to the inquiries ... at hand. Morris et al. v. State, 25 Ala.App. 175, ... 142 So. 685 ... In ... recognition of the above stated principle and rule, Judge ... Bricken, presiding judge of this court, in the case of ... Jimmerson v. State, 17 Ala.App. 552, 86 So. 153, ... 154, said: "The general rule is that character, whether ... good or bad, can only be proved by general reputation and ... evidence of particular acts or conduct is inadmissible, both ... on the direct and cross-examination, though in the latter a ... ...
-
Pointer v. State, 8 Div. 406
...to introduce evidence of the witness' good reputation for truth and veracity. Earle v. State, 1 Ala.App. 183, 56 So. 32; Jimmerson v. State, 17 Ala.App. 552, 86 So. 153; Morrow v. State, 23 Ala.App. 452, 126 So. 887; Lassiter v. State, 35 Ala.App. 323, 47 So.2d 230, certiorari denied 254 Al......
-
Morris v. State
... ... Such ... examination, however, may be easily abused, and should be ... carefully guarded by the trial judge. Even a slight ... overstepping of the rule may result in great prejudice to a ... defendant on trial. Kelly v. State, 17 Ala. App ... 577, 88 So. 180; Jimmerson v. State, 17 Ala. App ... 552, 86 So. 153; Gray v. State, 21 Ala. App. 409, ... 108 So. 658; Bedingfield v. State, 24 Ala. App. 398, ... 135 So. 656 ... Tom ... Steele, a witness for the state, testified that on the night ... of the homicide, between 7 and 8 o'clock, he passed over ... ...