McGuire v. State

• Decision Date: 30 November 1911
• Parties: MCGUIRE v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

57 So. 57

2 Ala.App. 218

MCGUIRE v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

November 30, 1911

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tallapoosa County; A. H. Alston, Judge.

Harve McGuire was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Riddle, Ellis, Riddle & Pruett, for appellant.

R. C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DE GRAFFENRIED, J.

In the case of Ward v. State, 28 Ala. 53, Mr. Justice afterwards Chief Justice, Stone in an able dissenting opinion states that, to preserve the harmonies of the law, evidence as to character introduced for the purpose of impeaching a witness should be confined to general evidence affecting his credit for veracity, and that evidence of the general bad character of the witness should not be allowed. The majority of the court, however, held that the law makes no such restriction, but allows a broader inquiry into general character. The broader inquiry is allowed, not that the jury may consider such evidence of general bad character of a witness for any purpose other than for the purpose of ascertaining the weight to be given his testimony, but because "it would be unjust that a witness who has made no general character as to truth, but whose general character is notoriously bad and infamous, should find protection by a restriction which might enable him to obtain equal credit with a man of unsullied general character." Rice, C.J., in Ward v. State, supra.

The above case has, since its rendition, been uniformly followed and the settled rule in Alabama is that, for the purpose of impeaching a witness, general bad character simply may be proved, without asking the further question of the impeaching witness, if he would believe him on oath in a court of justice. Byers v. State, 105 Ala. 31, 16 So. 716.

A defendant who testifies as a witness in his case may be impeached in the same manner as other witnesses by showing that he has been convicted of crime involving moral turpitude, that he has made contradictory statements, or that he is a person of general bad character. Thompson v State, 100 Ala. 70, 14 So. 878. While the above is true the evidence of general bad character of a witness is, of course, as above stated, admissible for the purpose of impeachment, and for no other purpose; and, as the general bad character of a defendant who has not offered previous evidence of his general good character can only be introduced by the prosecution when the defendant testifies in his case as a witness, such evidence of the general bad character of the defendant is admissible for the purpose of impeaching him as a witness and for no other purpose.

When a defendant testifies as a witness in his own behalf, and then offers, affirmatively, evidence of his general good character, such evidence cannot be considered by the jury to support or sustain the testimony given by him; for in such a case the jury can only consider his testimony as if there was no evidence of his general good character. In other words, under such a state of facts, the evidence of the general good character of the defendant can only be considered by the jury, along with the other evidence in the case, in passing on the question of the guilt vel non of the defendant, and cannot be considered by them in passing on the question as to his credibility as a witness, and charges to that effect will be upheld. Gibson v. State, 89 Ala. 121, 8 So. 98, 18 Am. St. Rep. 96.

The sum and substance of the whole matter is that, when evidence is admissible for one purpose and one purpose only, justice requires that it shall be restricted to the purpose for which it is...