Miller v. State

Decision Date11 January 1927
Docket Number6 Div. 959
Citation21 Ala.App. 653,111 So. 648
PartiesMILLER v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Rehearing Denied March 8, 1927

Appeal from Circuit Court, Blount County; Woodson J. Martin, Judge.

Foy Miller was convicted of manufacturing whisky, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Ward Nash & Fendley, of Oneonta, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD J.

After the state had closed its evidence, the defendant declined to offer testimony, and requested the court to give in his behalf the general affirmative charge, stating the grounds therefor to the court to wit, that the state had failed to prove the time laid in the indictment. The court refused this charge, and over the objection and exception of defendant, permitted the state to recall a witness and to supply this proof. This was in the discretion of the court. Code 1923, § 9490.

The principal state's witness having testified that he captured a two-gallon jug of whisky at the still where defendant was working, it was permissible for him to testify that he took this whisky to the sheriff's office and turned it over to the chief deputy, and for the deputy to testify as to its disposal, in corroboration of the testimony of the principal witness. The fact that the principal state's witness did not "swear out" a warrant for defendant immediately after he had seen defendant at the still is irrelevant and immaterial. Such fact could not affect the credibility of the testimony of such witness.

The fact, if it be a fact, that during the term of the court at which defendant was being tried, one of the state's witnesses in this case said to a man examined by the defendant, "Old boy, I think you are going to stand by me, and not flicker on me like your daddy did," was not relevant as testimony. It was not shown that this remark related to this case; on the contrary, the witness said that the conversation in which the remark was used was "not about this case in particular."

The expression in the testimony of a character witness, who had testified to the general good character of another that "I think I would believe him on oath in a court of justice," is not error upon which to predicate a reversal. Such answer is not in the technical language usual in such examination, but is equivalent to saying that to the best of the witness' judgment he would believe the witness about whom he was then testifying.

Refused charges...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Roynica v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 1, 1974
    ...The action of the court was admissible and within the court's discretion. Orr v. State, 225 Ala. 642, 144 So. 867(1); Miller v. State, 21 Ala.App. 653, 111 So. 648(1). We wish to state in conclusion that the record in this case is in three volumes and contains 586 pages. Appellant's compreh......
  • Hill v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 13, 1972
    ...an omission, is within the discretion of the trial judge. Title 7, Section 252, Code of Alabama 1940 (Recompiled 1958); Miller v. State, 21 Ala.App. 653, 111 So. 648. Following testimony as to the value of the car, the defendant again moved to exclude State's evidence 'in that no crime has ......
  • Tanner v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • January 18, 1927

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT