Kinsey v. State
Decision Date | 08 April 1920 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 200 |
Citation | 85 So. 519,204 Ala. 180 |
Parties | KINSEY v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; C.P. Almon, Judge.
Howard Kinsey was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion of the court.
Simpson & Simpson, of Florence, for appellant.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
On January 1, 1919, Ed Gentry's lifeless body was found in a field, near a public road, two miles out of Florence. He had been shot both through the head and the heart. Kinsey, the appellant, and Lester Staggs were arrested for his murder. On Staggs' trial he was convicted; and on appellant's trial a few days later he was adjudged guilty of murder in the second degree and given sentence of 24 years. That Staggs and appellant went with Gentry to the neighborhood of the crime, for the purpose of getting whisky, was satisfactorily established by the evidence. The prosecution offered testimony in recital of statements, incriminatory in nature made by the appellant. They are characterized in the record as confessions, and, in a sense, some of them might be so regarded. The former sheriff, Romine, testified that appellant, after arrest, made two or three statements to him or in his presence; and that, in substance these statements were voluntary, no threats, or other invalidating acts or words being applied by any one to induce appellant to make these statements.
On his examination in chief appellant testified as follows:
Immediately succeeding this testimony this question was propounded by counsel, "Were you afraid of Staggs?" The court sustained the prosecution's objection to the question but no ground of objection was stated. Some of the statements attributed to appellant by the witness Romine and admitted by the appellant to have been made by him to that witness, if not others, consisted with what the appellant testified Staggs told him to say (quoted above) in explanation of the cause and circumstances of Gentry's death. It was decided in Johnson v. State, 102 Ala. 20, 21, 16 So. 99 ( ) that an exception to the general rule that a witness may not testify to his uncommunicated motives and intention exists where the witness admits that he made a statement attributed by others to him. This exception comprehends the right of even a witness to explain "the nature, circumstances, meaning and design" of what he said, and "he may be asked the motive by which he was induced to use such expressions." This doctrine of Johnson v. State was accepted and applied in Lowman v. State, 167 Ala. 57, 52 So. 638; Williams v. State, 123 Ala. 39, 26 So. 521; Postal Co. v. Hulsey, 115 Ala. 193, 207, 22 So. 854; Henry v. State, 107 Ala. 22, 26, 19 So. 23; Anderson v. State, 104 Ala. 83, 86, 87, 16 So. 108. In the last cited case it was held--notwithstanding the form of the question--that a witness might testify in explanation of discrepancies between her present testimony and that given on a former hearing of a bastardy proceeding that she, the witness, was "scared and embarrassed before the justice of the peace"; the ruling being referred for authority to Johnson v. State, supra. It appears from the consideration accorded by this court to the doctrine of the Johnson Case and its application to concrete cases that the exception's effect is not restricted to instances where cross-examination of the witness has elicited the subject for the application of the rule of the Johnson Case. Its design is to give the jury, as well as the witness, the benefit of whatever circumstance or explanation, including...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pollard v. Rogers
... ... or parallel tracks, and that the open space between the ... tracks was small. Some witnesses state that such space was ... not sufficient within which to stop the automobile with ... safety between such parallel tracks. The photographs in ... State, 120 Ala. 293, 25 So ... 6; Williams v. State, 123 Ala. 39, 26 So. 521; ... Lowman v. State, 167 Ala. 57, 52 So. 638; Kinsey ... v. State, 204 Ala. 180, 85 So. 519; Turner v ... State, 224 Ala. 345, 140 So. 448; Orr v. State, ... 225 Ala. 642, 144 So. 867; Hays v ... ...
-
McGuff v. State
...We think this exception has ben so extended as to practically destroy the main rule, if the full force of the decision in Kinsey v. State, 204 Ala. 180, 85 So. 519, recognized and applied. In that case an accused was permitted to testify that his reason for making a confession, which had be......
-
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Dowdle
...Johnson v. State, 102 Ala. 1, 16 So. 99; Anderson v. State, 104 Ala. 83, 16 So. 108; Campbell v. State, 23 Ala. (44) 76; Kinsey v. State, 204 Ala. 180, 85 So. 519; Williams v. State, 123 Ala. 39, 26 So. 'The principle has been applied to the motive for acts and conduct of the witness brough......
-
Ingram v. State
...not nervous strengthens the materiality of the testimony sought by the question to which the objection was sustained. In Kinsey v. State, 204 Ala. 180, 85 So. 519, 520, appellant was convicted of murder. One Staggs was also implicated in the same murder and had been convicted therefor. The ......