Knight v. State, 5 Div. 790.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 790. |
| Citation | 129 So. 478,23 Ala.App. 582 |
| Parties | KNIGHT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; W. B. Bowling, Judge.
Cullman Knight was convicted of distilling and possessing a still and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Pruett & Glass, of Ashland, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
J. W Kilgore was one of the principal witnesses for the state, and if his testimony is to be believed, beyond a reasonable doubt, fastened guilt upon this defendant. Upon cross-examination, this witness was asked what part of the $50 informer's fee fixed by law he expected to get. The state's objection was sustained to this question and defendant excepted, the court adding: "That $50.00 reward is offered by the State, payable to the person who catches the still." The inquiry was not as to whether the fee would be paid; that fact, of course, was and is fixed by law. But the jury was entitled to know what part, if any the witness expected as tending to show his pecuniary interest in the prosecution. The rule in this state is that any fact showing interest, bias, or prejudice of a witness may be proved in any legal mode. Allen v. Fincher, 187 Ala. 599, 65 So. 946; Cox v. State, 22 Ala. App. 102, 112 So. 898.
It was not error for the court to refuse to allow the defendant to show that there were other "still sites" where whisky had been made around and in close proximity to the home of Dan Johnson near the place where the still here involved is claimed to have been located. This evidence was illegal, irrelevant, and immaterial. Johnson was not a party to this prosecution, and even if he had been, the fact, if it be a fact, that he was interested in other stills would not affect this case.
After the state and defense had announced "closed," the solicitor had made his opening argument, and the defendant's counsel had closed their arguments, over the objection and exception of defendant the state was allowed to reopen its case and to examine several witnesses touching the impeachment of the testimony of one of the witnesses for defendant, whose testimony had not been theretofore denied. This action of the court was very, very irregular and was calculated to prejudice the defendant's case, but much must be left to the discretion of the trial court in the direction of trials before him. While, as we have said, the proceeding was irregular, we cannot from this record hold that the discretion was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buckelew v. State
...reward basis. If there had been such an arrangement it would have gone to the weight to be accorded Otten's testimony. Knight v. State, 23 Ala.App. 582, 129 So. 478. A contingency requiring conviction does not taint a reward. Dixon v. State, 269 Ala. 548, 115 So.2d 270. However, we have bee......
-
Turner v. State
...by Mr. Justice Simpson uses the less abstruse 'may.' In all the cases cited regarding charge 14 in Richardson, except Knight v. State, 23 Ala.App. 582, 129 So. 478, the form approved has 'may.' Procrustean grammatical rules do not limit the oral charge which a trial judge gives. Yet he can ......
-
Commonwealth v. Evancho
... ... made a supersedeas ... --------- ... [1] See State v. King, 1942, 232 Iowa ... 16, 4 N.W.2d 244; People v. rtnett, 1910, 15 ... Cal.App. 89, 113 P. 879; Knight v. State, 1930, 23 ... Ala.App. 582, 129 So. 478; People ... ...
-
Com. v. Evancho
...1 See State v. King, 1942, 232 Iowa 16, 4 N.W.2d 244; People v. Bartnett, 1910, 15 Cal.App. 89, 113 P. 879; Knight v. State, 1930, 23 Ala.App. 582, 129 So. 478; People v. Jordan, 1920, 292 Ill. 514, 127 N.E. 117; State v. Herwitz, 1919, 109 Wash. 153, 186 P. 290; Howell v. State, 1911, 98 M......