Meador v. State, 1 Div. 683
| Decision Date | 27 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 683 |
| Citation | 72 So.2d 418,37 Ala.App. 573 |
| Parties | MEADOR v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Arthur Epperson, Foley, and Tolbert M. Brantley, Bay Minette, for appellant.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Paul T. Gish, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This appellant stands convicted of burglary in the second degree, his punishment having been duly fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
Since a ruling by the court necessitates a reversal of this cause we will set out only so much of the evidence as may be necessary as a back drop for this ruling.
During the presentation of his evidence the defendant called as a witness Timothy Hunger. Actually the testimony of this witness on his direct examination produced evidence of slight, if any, probative value in so far as the issues of this case are concerned.
However, during the cross-examination by the Solicitor of this defense witness the record shows the following:
'
'
'Mr. Brantley: We object.
'Mr. Lauten: I have a right to show his bias.
'Mr. Brantley: We except.
'Mr. Epperson: We object.
'The Court: Overrule the objection.
'Mr. Epperson: Except.
No proper predicate had been laid for the evidence on the Solicitor's erroneous theory that it should be admitted to show bias.
The proper way to show bias on the part of a witness is to ask him directly the state of his feelings, and if he denies bias, then resort may be had to facts tending to show it. Sullivan v. State, 25 Ala.App. 140, 142 So. 110; Pendley v. State, 34 Ala.App. 453, 41 So.2d 205.
While a witness' prior conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude may be shown as going to his credibility, a mere 'involvement' in such a crime possesses no probative value and evidence to that effect is meaningless and obscure. This very obscurity does however furnish a nourishing medium for the production of ineradicable prejudice.
For this reason it is well settled that a mere accusation against a witness even for a crime involving moral turpitude is not admissible as affecting his credibility. Horsley v. State, 19 Ala.App. 263, 96 So. 937; Rogers v. State, 34 Ala.App. 617, 42 So.2d 642. See also 19 Alabama Digest, Witnesses, k345(1) for other cases illustrative of this principle.
The question as to whether the witness, and apparently the appellant also, were 'involved' in the theft of a locker sought evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warren v. State
...his credibility. Horsley v. State, 19 Ala.App. 263, 96 So. 937; Rogers v. State, 34 Ala.App. 617, 42 So.2d 642. In Meador v. State, 37 Ala.App. 573, 72 So.2d 418, Judge (now Justice) Harwood writing for this court pointed 'While a witness' prior conviction for a crime involving moral turpit......
-
Page v. State
...to show it. Adams v. State, 280 Ala. 678, 198 So.2d 255 (1967); Nichols v. State, supra; Maples v. State, supra; Meador v. State, 37 Ala.App. 573, 72 So.2d 418 (1954). Appellant argues in his brief that although the trial court normally has discretion concerning the conduct of cross-examina......
-
Nichols v. State
...and if he denies bias, or says his state of feeling is good, then resort may be had to facts tending to show otherwise. Meador v. State, 37 Ala.App. 573, 72 So.2d 418, and cases there cited. However, as pointed out in Louisville & Nashsville R. Co. v. Martin, 240 Ala. 124, 198 So. 141, our ......
-
Allen v. State
...and if he denies bias, then resort may be had to facts tending to show it. Nichols v. State, 276 Ala. 209, 160 So.2d 619; Meador v. State, 37 Ala.App. 573, 72 So.2d 418.' The Meador case, cited in Maples, supra, 'The proper way to show bias on the part of a witness is to ask him directly th......