Latner v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 953. |
| Citation | 20 Ala.App. 180,101 So. 522 |
| Parties | LATNER ET AL. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied July 22, 1924.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; W. L. Parks, Judge.
Alva K Latner and Fred Latner were convicted under an indictment charging the manufacture of prohibited liquors and possession of a still, and appeal. Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Ex parte Latner 101 So. 523.
E. O. Baldwin, of Andalusia, for appellants
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The evidence for the state was positive as contradistinguished from circumstantial evidence, and hence charge No. 3 requested in writing was abstract and misleading. The charge, under the evidence in this case, was properly refused. Bosteen Tatum v. State (Ala. App.) 100 So. 569; Ex parte Bud Hill v. State, 19 Ala. App. 618, 100 So. 315
After the defendants had introduced twelve witnesses, who testified to the defendants' good character, the court asked defendants' counsel how many more witnesses he had to offer as to defendants' character. Counsel replied giving the names of five additional witnesses. It was thereupon admitted that these witnesses would so testify, and the court refused to permit the time of the court to be further consumed upon a question not disputed. This presents an entirely different question to that considered in Leverett v. State, 18 Ala. App. 578, 93 So. 347. In the Leverett Case one of the main facts in issue was the honesty of the defendant; here it is not. There the defendant's character for honesty and integrity was being assailed; here there is no dispute as to the previous good character of defendants. Within reasonable bounds the court may in its discretion limit the number of witnesses who may be called to prove a particular fact in issue. Leverett's Case, supra; Jones v. Glidewell, 53 Ark. 161, 13 S.W. 723, 7 L. R. A. 831. But not where the fact sought to be proved is one of the main facts in issue. Ward v. Dick, 45 Conn. 235, 29 Am. Rep. 677.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
... ... exception to the rule if the factual issue as to character of ... the defendant is not in dispute, and in some cases Supreme ... Court Rule 45 has been applied. Willis v. State, 20 ... Ala.App. 572, 104 So. 141; Leverett v. State, 18 ... Ala.App. 578, 93 So. 347; Latner et al. v. State, 20 ... Ala.App. 180, 101 So. 522, 523; Norris v. State, 16 ... Ala.App. 126, 75 So. 718 ... Our ... approach here must be made from another point of view. The ... orderly and accepted procedure required that the appellant ... continue to a completion of this line ... ...
-
Crews v. State
... ... 24, 100 So. 569, this court discussed at length charges ... similar to refused charge 5 and pointed out ... [117 So. 803.] ... when such charges should be given, being dependent upon the ... character of the evidence. In the instant case the charge is ... properly refused. Latner v. State, 20 Ala.App. 180, ... 101 So. 522; Perkins v. State, 20 Ala.App. 276, 101 ... So. 770; Martin v. State, 21 Ala.App. 575, 110 So ... The ... defendant was charged in one count of the indictment with ... manufacturing whisky. Under this count he might, under ... certain ... ...
-
Jones v. State, 6 Div. 511
...CHARACTER WITNESSES? YES." Counsel for the State argue that the application for rehearing is supported by the cases of Latner v. State, 20 Ala.App. 180, 101 So. 522 (1924), cert. denied, Ex parte Latner, 211 Ala. 613, 101 So. 523 (1924), and Williams v. State, 34 Ala.App. 253, 39 So.2d 29 (......
- Brown v. State