Martin v. State
| Citation | 16 Ala.App. 406,78 So. 322 |
| Decision Date | 12 March 1918 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 300 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.
J.C Martin was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
L.A. Sanderson, of Montgomery, for appellant.
F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and David W.W. Fuller, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
From a judgment of conviction of a violation of the prohibition law this appeal is taken. The indictment contained several counts charging a violation of the prohibition law in its several phases. On this appeal it is insisted that the court committed error in its rulings upon the evidence and in the refusal of several written charges requested by the defendant. The facts as developed by the testimony showed that the sheriff and two deputies raided the bedroom of the defendant on two separate occasions. This room was located at 14 1/2 South Court street in the city of Montgomery, and was over a vacant store. The undisputed evidence showed that on the first raid the officers found about two dozen bottles of beer, and on the second visit they found 34 bottles of beer. The defendant was present in his room when the first visit of the officers was made, but was not present when they visited the place the second time. On neither occasion was the defendant arrested, and the prosecution was commenced by indictment preferred by the grand jury of the county.
During the trial and pending the examination of the state's witnesses, Sheriff Waller and his deputies Wilson and Young these witnesses were permitted to testify, over the timely objection of the defendant, that while they were in the room on the second visit several soldiers came up the stairs and entered the room and asked to buy some beer, and over the objection of the defendant each of these witnesses was permitted to testify as to the details of the conversation had between the officers and the soldiers; among other things, the witnesses were allowed to testify that the soldiers stated that they wanted to buy some beer; that they had been getting it there, etc. To all of this testimony defendant interposed objections on the grounds, among others, that the testimony was illegal and irrelevant, that it was hearsay testimony, and that it was the unsworn statement of persons made not in the presence or hearing of the defendant; that it was a statement by which defendant was in no sense bound and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnold v. State
...... to prejudice the minds of the jury against him, cannot be. doubted. This being true, it was irrelevant and inadmissible,. and under the following authorities the court's ruling. must be adjudged error: Hardaman v. State, 16 Ala. App. 408, 78 So. 324 (on rehearing). Martin v. State, 16 Ala. App. 406, 78 So. 322; Johnson's Case,. 201 Ala. 41, 77 So. 335, 6 A. L. R. 1031; Jones v. State, 17 Ala. App. 394, 85 So. 830; Dennison v. State, 17 Ala. App. 674, 88 So. 211; Madry v. State, 201 Ala. 512, 514, 78 So. 866. . . Application. for rehearing is ......
-
Dolan v. Mitchell
...(1923); Taylor v. State, 31 Ala.App. 590, 20 So.2d 239 (1944); Barnes v. State, 31 Ala.App. 187, 14 So.2d 242 (1943); Martin v. State, 16 Ala.App. 406, 78 So. 322 (1918). Under the circumstances, the admission of this evidence could only serve to confuse and mislead the jury, and it should ......
-
Hayes v. State
......It seems to be. without dispute that the pistol in question did belong to the. witness. Whether or not it was registered or he had a permit. to carry it was not conducive to the proof of a pertinent. hypothesis that would in any degree influence the factual. issues. Martin v. State, 16 Ala.App. 406, 78 So. 322; Taylor v. State, 31 Ala.App. 590, 20 So.2d 239. . . . Admittedly, the brother whose testimony we are now reviewing. shot the defendant twice with a shotgun. This occurred at the. place of the main difficulty and was during or just. immediately ......
-
Smitherman v. State
...... or which afford a reasonable inference or shed light upon the. matter contested; and facts bearing so remotely upon or. collaterally to the issue that they afford merely conjectural. inference concerning the facts in issue should not be. admitted in evidence.' See also Martin v. State,. 16 Ala.App. 406, 78 So. 322; Barnes v. State, 31. Ala.App. 187, 14 So.2d 242; Taylor v. State, 31. Ala.App. 590, 20 So.2d 239. . . We are. led to the considered conclusion that the trial court in the. instant case went beyond the confines of his discretionary. power in ......