McDaniel v. State
| Decision Date | 21 April 1910 |
| Citation | 52 So. 400,166 Ala. 7 |
| Parties | MCDANIEL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hale County; B. M. Miller, Judge.
Joe McDaniel was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
See also, 50 So. 324.
C. E Waller and H. G. Benners, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree, and the only question raised by the record is as to the correctness of the ruling of the court in sustaining the objection to the question by the defendant to the witness R B. Evins, "Did you hear Emma Williams make a statement about this, this morning?" The previous question to the witness was, "Did you hear Emma Williams' testimony on the trial of Ed Howard?" to which he answered "No, sir; I was not here." The objection to this question might have been sustained, on account of its indefiniteness. Taking the connection with the preceding question, the "statement about this" must refer to the testimony of Emma Williams on the previous trial, and the question evidently sought to elicit some statement made by Emma Williams in regard to her testimony at the previous trial. What she testified to at the previous trial could not be proved by relating what she said about it, as that would be mere hearsay. If the object was to impeach the witness, a predicate should have been laid, by asking Emma Williams whether she made such statements, giving time and place, person to whom the statements were made, persons present, etc.; and the question to this witness should be as definite, in describing the time, place, etc., so as to identify the statements as to those included in the predicate. 4 Mayfield's Dig. p. 1198, § 168; Price v. State, 117 Ala. 113, 23 So. 691.
The witness Emma Williams had stated, on cross-examination, that she did not know what she had sworn to when she was examined before in this case, and acknowledged that on the morning of the present trial she had stated that she had never heard any such talk, and that she had said what she did before because she was scared, because they had a rope around another girl's neck and were going to hang her if she did not tell about the killing. No testimony, by any one else, as to her making such statements, could add anything to the witness' own acknowledgment that she had made the statements. This testimony as to her statements was not admissible for any purpose, except to impeach said Emma Williams, and we cannot see that the mere statement by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valentine v. State
... ... must show the time, place, and to whom or in whose presence ... the alleged statements were made, so as to identify the ... statements as those included in the predicate, and to fully ... inform the witness of the particular statements inquired [19 ... Ala.App. 513] about. McDaniel v. State, 166 Ala. 7, ... 52 So. 400; Southern Railway Co. v. Williams, 113 ... Ala. 620, 21 So. 328; 4 Mayfield's Dig. p. 1198, par ... The ... court properly sustained objection to the following question ... to the witness Charlie McGill: "Is it not a fact that ... Will nearly ... ...
-
Edwards v. State
...be as definite, in describing the time, place, etc., so as to identify the statements as those included in the predicate.' McDaniel v. State, 166 Ala. 7, 8, 52 So. 400. The questions to Coon, on cross-examination, did not, at first, include Smith among those present when Coon was being ques......
-
Qualls v. Qualls
... ... to the land in question to Mr. Qualls. The predicate sought ... to be laid was within the accepted rule. McDaniel v ... State, 166 Ala. 7, 52 So. 400; Price v. State, ... 117 Ala. 113, 23 So. 691; Hester v. State, 103 Ala ... 83, 88, 15 So. 857. It is clear, ... ...
-
Independent Life Ins. Co. v. Carroll
...was insufficient in failing to specify time and place which is required by the general rules. 40 Cyc. 2728, 2729; McDaniel v. State, 166 Ala. 7, 52 So. 400. reason for the rule is to prevent surprise and give the witness an opportunity for explanation. But the authorities hold the rule is n......