McKelton v. State
| Decision Date | 31 May 1889 |
| Citation | 6 So. 301,86 Ala. 594 |
| Parties | MCKELTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Tuscaloosa county; S. H. SPROTT, Judge.
From a conviction for burglary Charles Kelton appeals.
W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Henry Williams was introduced and examined as a witness for the state. He testified that shortly before the alleged burglary of the store-house was committed he stole the key of the store-house, and delivered it to the defendant. He was asked, on cross-examination, if he did not, in his testimony before the committing magistrate, deny that he gave the key to the defendant. He answered that he did not. The committing magistrate was then examined for the defense, and testified that the witness Henry Williams, in the trial before him, did, in his testimony, deny that he gave the key to the defendant. The witness-the committing magistrate-was then asked by the prosecution if the said Williams did not state to him, just before the preliminary trial, that he did give the key to the defendant, the same as he stated on this trial. The witness replied that the said Henry Williams did so state to him when he was first arrested and brought before him. To this question and answer the defendant objected. His objection as overruled, and he excepted. The witness Williams had been indicted for and convicted of the same burglary.
We suppose the circuit court was influenced in its ruling by the case of Sonneborn v. Bernstein, 49 Ala. 168. The principle declared in that case is not supported by the authorities, and must be overruled. There are exceptional cases,-a charge of rape is one of them,-in which, under certain circumstances, such testimony may be received. The present case does not fall within the exception to the rule, and the circuit court erred in receiving the testimony. The correct rule is declared in Nichols v. Stewart, 20 Ala. 358; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 469; Adams v. Thornton, 82 Ala. 260, 3 South. Rep. 20.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Driggers v. United States
...and consistent with his testimony in court. This doctrine, however, was directly overruled, and the case went with it, in McKelton v. State, 86 Ala. 594, 6 So. 301, in which the court said: "A witness having been impeached by proof of contradictory statements made by him on the preliminary ......
-
Driggers v. U.S.
...uniform and consistent with his testimony in court. This doctrine, however, was directly overruled, and the case went with it, in McKelton v. State, 86 Ala. 594. 6 301, in which the court said: "A witness having been impeached by proof of contradictory statements made by him on the prelimin......
-
Pruitt v. State, 8 Div. 692
...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. 295; McKelton v. State, 86 Ala. 594, 6 So. 301. course of cross-examination of such a witness through another interpreter was the only proper means of obtaining the truth, or......
-
Bush v. State
... ... permissible to corroborate witness by proving that he 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 v ... State, 107 Ala. 96, 18 So. 237; McKelton v ... State, 86 Ala. 594, 6 So. 301; Nichols v ... Stewart, 20 Ala. 358. These cases either overruled or ... distinguished the cases holding to the contrary, and this ... case does not fall within the exception or the cases so ... distinguished. If the defendant had offered any part of the ... ...