Long v. Whit
| Decision Date | 06 July 1916 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 636 |
| Citation | 72 So. 529,197 Ala. 271 |
| Parties | LONG v. WHIT. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Selma; J.W. Mabry, Judge.
Action by Thomas H. Long against Robert Whit. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under section 6, Acts 1911, p. 449. Affirmed.
When plaintiff was on the stand he testified that he had a litigation in October, 1909, with Bob Whit about the same crop in the justice court of J.B. Christian, and he was asked if he had not sated there on that occasion on oath that he had never notified Bob Whit that he had raised his rent, and he stated in answer thereto that he did not state on oath that he had not notified Bob Whit that his rent was raised. Mr. Christian being called stated that the witness had sworn before him that he had not notified Bob Whit of any raise in his rent for that year. Later on in the trial, and in rebuttal, plaintiff sought to show by other witnesses that he told them that the rent had been raised and how much it had been raised, and that Bob Whit's rent was now $175. This was offered to be shown by several witnesses, but upon objection was not permitted.
Pettus Fuller & Lapsley, of Selma, for appellant.
Craig & Craig, of Selma, for appellee.
The plaintiff having testified as to a certain fact and the defendant having shown, for the purpose of impeaching him that he did not so testify upon the trial before J.B Christian, the trial court did not err in declining to let the said plaintiff Long prove that at other times he made statements consistent with his testimony in the present trial and inconsistent with that imputed to him upon the trial before Christian. This character of evidence had been repeatedly condemned by the decisions of this court. Nichols v. Stewart, 20 Ala. 358; Jones v. State, 107 ala. 96, 18 So. 237; McKelton v. State, 86 Ala. 594, 6 So. 301; Adams v. Thornton, 82 Ala. 260, 3 So. 20. The case of Sonneborn v. Bernstein, 49 Ala. 168, is not in line with these cases and was expressly overruled in the McKelton Case, supra. There are exceptional cases; a charge of rape is in one of them, in which, under certain circumstances, such testimony may be received. McKelton's Case, supra. The case of Brooks v. State, 185 Ala. 1, 64 So. 295, falls within the exception authorizing such testimony as that case involved the charge of an assault to ravish.
The judgment of the city ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pruitt v. State, 8 Div. 692
...the suspicion, which might be created by the fact of silence, to be repelled by contrary proof. 1 P.Ev. 307." See, also, Long v. Whit, 197 Ala. 271, 72 So. 529; Brooks v. State, 185 Ala. 1, 64 So. McKelton v. State, 86 Ala. 594, 6 So. 301. The course of cross-examination of such a witness t......
-
Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. Haynes
...1977). However, rehabilitation of a witness by evidence of a prior consistent statement has been held to be improper. See Long v. Whit, 197 Ala. 271, 72 So. 529 (1916); C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 177.01(2) (1991). Professor Gamble summarizes the rule this "As a general rule, t......
-
Bush v. State
...made similar statements prior to the time of his testifying, or that he testified in the same manner on a previous trial. See Long v. Whit, 197 Ala. 271, 72 So. 529; Jones State, 107 Ala. 96, 18 So. 237; McKelton v. State, 86 Ala. 594, 6 So. 301; Nichols v. Stewart, 20 Ala. 358. These cases......
-
Harris v. State
...consistent with his present testimony. The exception is available in prosecutions for rape and related offenses. Long v. Whit, 197 Ala. 271, 72 So. 529 (1916); Murphy v. State, 355 So.2d 1153, 1157-8 (Ala.Cr.App.1978) citing McElroy at Section 178.01. Since the prosecutor did not even attem......