Lewis v. State
| Decision Date | 16 December 1909 |
| Citation | 165 Ala. 83,51 So. 308 |
| Parties | LEWIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; S. L. Weaver, Judge.
Mary Lewis was convicted of robbery, and she appeals. Affirmed.
George Bondurant, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The witness Fischel was the owner of the diamond stud, and was familiar with it, and did not have to be an expert in order to testify as to value. So. R. R. v. Morris, 143 Ala. 628, 42 So. 17. Moreover, if the rule was otherwise, the witness answered that he knew the value of diamonds, and a witness need not always be a dealer in diamonds in order to know the value of same. The trial court did not err in refusing to exclude the evidence of this witness as to the value of the diamond stud.
The witness Fischel testified that the woman who helped rob him had long hair, and one of the defendant's witnesses testified that the woman she saw running from Fischel had bushy hair. On the trial the defendant appeared to have short, nappy hair, and which created a discrepancy in the testimony as to her description; and it was clearly permissible for the state to ascertain if she habitually wore a wig, and to prove that she owned one, or that one was found in her house shortly after the commission of the crime.
This was clearly a case for the jury, and the trial court properly refused the general charge, requested by the defendant.
We have examined the other charges refused the defendant, and they were either bad or sufficiently duplicated by the given charges.
The judgment of the criminal court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hammond
...value of property without qualifying as an expert is relied upon in the criminal field as noted by the following cases: Lewis v. State, 165 Ala. 83, 51 So. 308 (1909); Luker v. State, 23 Ala.App. 379, 125 So. 788 (1930); Johnson v. State, 190 Ark. 979, 82 S.W.2d 521 (1935); People v. Hender......
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Loveman Compress Co.
...of property of this kind." A nonexpert can given an opinion as to value. Southern R.R. v. Morris, 143 Ala. 628, 42 So. 17; Lewis v. State, 165 Ala. 83, 51 So. 308; Vandegrift v. State, 151 Ala. 105, 43 So. There was no error in sustaining the plaintiff's objection to the questions to the wi......
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Street
... ... of the punishment due the wrongdoer. Of course, and ... perhaps it is unnecessary to state it, we have dealt only ... with the right of revision of verdicts in respect of punitive ... damages, and have not assumed to treat or doubt the ... ...
-
Carter v. State
... ... court likewise properly overruled defendant's objection ... to question propounded to the witness Sessions relative to ... the value of the wagon and harness, the property described in ... the indictment; the value of the property being a material ... question in this case. Lewis v. State, 165 Ala. 83, ... 51 So. 308; Cleveland v. Wheeler, 8 Ala.App. 645, 62 ... So. 309. The objection interposed being general, it was also ... properly overruled for that reason. Patton v. State ... (Sup.) 72 So. 401 ... There ... was also a general objection interposed to ... ...