Lancaster v. State
| Citation | 106 So. 618,214 Ala. 76 |
| Decision Date | 10 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 571 |
| Parties | LANCASTER v. STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Petition of the State, on the relation of its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of Robert Lancaster v. State, 106 So. 609. Writ denied.
See also, Lancaster v. State, 106 So. 617.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Horace C. Wilkinson, Sp. Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
A.H Carmichael, of Tuscumbia, Harwood & McQueen and Foster, and Rice & Foster, all of Tuscaloosa, E.B. & K.V. Fite, of Hamilton, and L.D. Gray, of Jasper, opposed.
When this cause was before us on certiorari at the last term ( Lancaster v. State, 106 So. 617), we called attention on rehearing to the contention of the counsel of the state touching certain testimony tending to show defendant's acquiescence and co-operation in efforts of Capt. Lollar to suppress testimony, and suggested that, if such contention be true, the testimony was properly admitted.
Following this suggestion, the Court of Appeals restored the cause to the rehearing docket for further consideration. On October 27, 1925, the Court of Appeals handed down an amplified and extended opinion, and also made special response to the application for rehearing. 106 So. 609.
The present proceeding by certiorari is to review the same questions in the light of the extended opinion. The Court of Appeals finds that it does not sufficiently appear from the evidence that defendant heard the instructions of Capt. Lollar, as deposed to by witness Hartley, whose testimony is quoted in the original as well as the later opinion, viz.:
The Court of Appeals finds further error, not noted in the original opinion, in the admissions of similar statements made by Capt. Lollar on the train coming to Birmingham. This error is rested upon a want of evidence showing the defendant heard these statements.
These further findings of fact are within the exclusive prerogative of the Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burns v. State
...by its rattle was allowed. And in Lancaster v. State, 21 Ala.App. 140, 106 So. 609, 615 (cert. den. 214 Ala. 2, 106 So. 617 and 214 Ala. 76, 106 So. 618) our Court of Appeals held that no error was committed permitting the witness Avery, shown to have been an expert automobile mechanic and ......
-
Pilley v. State, 6 Div. 308.
...549, 176 So. 372, certiorari denied 234 Ala. 621, 176 So. 375; Lancaster v. State, 21 Ala.App. 140, 106 So. 609, certiorari denied 214 Ala. 76, 106 So. 618; Humber v. State, 19 Ala.App. 451, 99 So. 68, certiorari denied 210 Ala. 559, 99 So. 73. Likewise it was proper to permit the witness P......