Miller v. State, 6 Div. 137
Decision Date | 07 March 1972 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 137 |
Citation | 261 So.2d 447,48 Ala.App. 28 |
Parties | Dorcie MILLER v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Roy D. McCord and J. A. Hornsby, Gadsden, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Herbert H. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was tried in the lower court and convicted of murder in the second degree. His sentence was fixed at thirty years imprisonment. From this judgment and sentence he brings this appeal.
The facts were set out in appellant's brief and supplemented by those set out in appellee's brief. Appellant's brief states the following:
The additional facts contained in appellee's brief are as follows:
On arraignment the appellant pleaded not guilty and later the day of the trial added the further plea of not guilty by reason of insanity as a part of his defense. However, insofar as this court can determine the plea of insanity seems to have been abandoned, since no testimony in support thereof was introduced.
The motion of the appellant to set aside the verdict of this case was overruled. This motion appears within the part of the transcript certified by the Clerk of the Court. In addition thereto, the appellant has filed an assignment of error not within in the sealed portion of the transcript and, therefore, not a part of the record proper, but the court has considered these assignments of error 1 along with the brief filed by appellant as an aid to its understanding of the appellant's contentions and argument for error.
The assignments are numbered and the court's response thereto are numbered insofar as it is practicable:
Assignment of Error No. 2: Objection to the questions as to Tilt Woods being shot by Dorsey Miller came after answer. There was no motion to exclude; hence, no error. Furthermore, Tilton Woods testified earlier that the trouble he had with the Millers was with Doris, another Miller brother, and we think it was Doris to whom the witness Frances Woods referred. Linda Woods was allowed, without objection, to testify that Doris Miller had at one time shot Tilton Woods in the leg and that he had been crippled ever since.
Assignment of Error No. 3: Objection and motion to exclude testimony of Sheriff J. C. Carr. Answer to questions objected to regarding the character of millard Woods was not responsive but this error was not of a reversible nature. The witness later testified, after proper predicate was laid and without objection, that the reputation of the deceased for peace and quietude was good.
Assignment of Error No. 4: Testimony of Trooper Shafer about an arrest of appellant in July was not responsive to question of prosecuting attorney as to arrest in August, the time of the killing, and the court was in error in overruling the motion to exclude. The court, however, apparently changed its ruling when the matter was again called to its attention by another motion to exclude by appellant and the motion was granted. In view of the wide range of the testimony no error of a harmful nature appears.
Assignment of Error No. 5: There is no merit in appellant's argument that the court erred in allowing State's witness Billy Ray Nix to testify that to the best of his knowledge Dorcie Miller, the appellant, said to him on the night of August 3 that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prewitt v. State
...committed the instant offense, or as proof of his motive ("murder for hire") for the instant offense. See, generally, Miller v. State, 48 Ala.App. 28, 261 So.2d 447, cert. denied, 288 Ala. 746, 261 So.2d 451 (1972); Hines v. State, 50 Ala.App. 161, 277 So.2d 905, cert. denied, 291 Ala. 783,......
-
Barnett v. State
...the appellant. Since the answer was given before the motion to exclude was made, such cannot constitute reversible error. Miller v. State, 48 Ala.App. 28, 261 So.2d 447, and authorities therein cited. Moreover, no objection was interposed by defense counsel when the envelope in question was......
-
Williams v. State
...327 So.2d 740 (1975). The objection came after a responsive answer. There being no motion to exclude, there was no error. Miller v. State, 48 Ala.App. 28, 261 So.2d 447, cert. denied, 288 Ala. 746, 261 So.2d 451 (1972). The admission of testimony, if error, is harmless where the same witnes......
-
Streeter v. State
...answer must be made. Hargrove v. State, 344 So.2d 823, 825 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 344 So.2d 826 (Ala.1977); Miller v. State, 48 Ala.App. 28, 261 So.2d 447, cert. denied, 288 Ala. 746, 261 So.2d 451 (1972). Where an objection is made after the answer is given, and no ruling of the tria......