Long v. City of Opelika, 5 Div. 365
| Decision Date | 21 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 365 |
| Citation | 37 Ala.App. 200,66 So.2d 126 |
| Parties | LONG v. CITY OF OPELIKA. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Walter B. Venters, Opelika, for appellant.
Glenn & Glenn, Opelika, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted in the Recorder's Court for having in his possession 'a ticket, paper or memorandum of a nature or kind which is customarily used in the operation of a lottery or game of chance,' in violation of an ordinance of the City of Opelika.
On appeal to the circuit court the case was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, upon the original affidavit.
The court adjudged defendant guilty, assessed a fine of $100 and imposed thirty days hard labor for the city and defendant appeals.
The city offered in evidence the transcript of the proceedings before the Recorder, containing the formal transcript of the docket, a copy of the ordinance on which the prosecution is based; the original affidavit and warrant and the appeal bond to the circuit court.
Several assignments of error relate (1) to the admission in evidence of a little black book, identified as City's Exhibit 'C' on the grounds it was not proved to be a record of a lottery transaction by witnesses qualified as experts on the subject of lottery records; (2) the overruling of appellant's motion to exclude all of appellee's evidence as to Exhibit 'C', because appellee had failed to make out its case and Exhibit 'C' was not properly identified and proved to be a record of lottery by qualified expert testimony, and (3) for permitting the officers Smith, Langley and Mann to testify in their opinion Exhibit 'C' was a book containing the records of lottery or bug rackets such as is customarily used in the operation of a lottery, because of their lack of qualifications as experts as to such records.
Officer Smith testified he had been a police officer about five months in Opelika and six months in Phenix City; that he had had experience with what is called the bug racket lottery and was familiar with the papers, documents and tickets customarily used in the operation of that racket; when he searched defendant after the arrest he found on his person a book which in his opinion contained a record of money paid out and taken in on lottery or bug tickets; that he had seen one book similar to it in Phenix City where records were kept on a larger scale. The book was then introduced in evidence and is attached to the record and is before us for examination.
H. H. Langley testified he had been a police officer of the City of Opelika since 1944; that he was present when defendant was searched and saw the little black book, City's Exhibit 'C', taken from defendant's pocket; he has had experience with bug racket cases, has seen them tried and has seen records that are kept in such cases; he is familiar in a general way with the records that are kept in bug cases and has seen one other book besides this and has seen a number of tickets; in his opinion it is a book containing the records of lottery or bug.
Police Chief Floyd Mann testified he was present when appellant was searched and the little black book was found in his possession; he has been a police officer ten years; has taken F. B. I. training in Washington and has had occasions to make arrests in cases involving violations of the laws pertaining to the bug or numbers racket; he is familiar with the books, papers and record usually kept in such cases; and explained to the court the writing in the book and stated in his judgment it is a record of lottery or bug racket tickets. On cross examination this witness testified he had never seen a book exactly like that nor one similar to it, but stated facts on which he based his opinion that the book was a record of lottery transactions and on redirect examination said that every record he had seen was different from every other record of that kind.
In the case of Reynolds v. State, 29 Ala.App. 139, 193 So. 192, Judge Samford observed: 'In a technical sense, a witness does not have to be an expert to give testimony as to things which he knows by study, practice, experience or observation on that particular subject.'
Moreover, the question of whether a witness is shown to possess the requisite qualification to testify as an expert is largely within the discretion of the trial court and will not ordinarily be disturbed unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. Ala.Dig.Crim.Law k481. We find no abuse of such discretion in this instance and are constrained to hold that the witnesses were qualified to testify that Exhibit 'C' was such record as is customarily used in the operation of a lottery and that the book was properly admitted in evidence.
After the evidence was concluded and both sides had rested, the court recalled to the witness stand Police Chief Mann and questioned him further concerning Exhibit 'C'. The witness stated he had already testified he had had some experience in bug racket violations, lotteries, etc., and in his opinion the little book is a memorandum customarily used in the operation of a lottery, and that it would be used by the head of the lottery. On cross examination he stated that although he had never seen a book similar to this he would still tell the court that in his opinion it is a thing customarily used in connection with the operation of a lottery. On direct examination by appellee's counsel he testified the entries made in the book after June 5, 1950, in his opinion, represent entries made in the operation of a bug racket and that he had seen records like that on papers and tickets, but not in book form.
During the court's examination of this witness the following occurred, which is made the basis of the remaining assignments of error:
'The Court: Chief Mann, I wish you would take that book and point out to the court anything in there that you say in your opinion is customarily or usually used in the operation of a lottery.
'Mr. Venters: May it please the court, in all respect I want to object to this procedure on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woods v. State
...only be granted because of some circumstances indicating that justice may not be done if the trial continues. Long v. City of Opelika, 37 Ala.App. 200, 66 So.2d 126 (1953). A motion for a mistrial implies a miscarriage of justice if the trial continues. The word is not ordinarily used to in......
-
Midwest Lime Co. v. Independence County Chancery Court
...be done if the trial is continued. Curley v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 314 Mass. 31, 49 N.E.2d 445 (1943); Long v. City of Opelika, 37 Ala.App. 200, 66 So.2d 126 (1953). It is doubtful that a motion for new trial is appropriate in chancery cases, but there is no doubt that the granting ......
-
State v. Mann
...that the accused was not unconstitutionally denied the right to orally argue his case. To the same effect, see Long v. City of Opelika, 1953, 37 Ala.App. 200, 66 So.2d 126, certiorari denied 259 Ala. 164, 66 So.2d 130; Casterlow v. State, 1971, 256 Ind. 214, 267 N.E.2d 552; United States ex......
-
Carlson v. Locatelli
...a new trial. (Footnotes omitted); see Vilander v. Hawkinson, 183 Kan. 214, 326 P.2d 273, 276 (1958); see also Long v. City of Opelika, 37 Ala.App. 200, 66 So.2d 126, 129, cert. denied, 259 Ala. 164, 66 So.2d 130 (1953); State v. Culbertson, 214 Kan. 884, 522 P.2d 391, 393 (1974); State v. N......