Miller v. State
| Citation | 16 Ala.App. 3,74 So. 840 |
| Decision Date | 03 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 408 |
| Parties | MILLER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; C.P. Almon, Judge.
Fayette Miller was convicted of public drunkenness, and appeals. Affirmed.
The following charges were refused to defendant:
The question to the witness Thompson, objected to, was as follows:
"What was his appearance?"
William Stell, of Russellville, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and Harwell G. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The defendant, Fayette Miller, was tried and convicted in the circuit court of Franklin county on the charge of public drunkenness and from a judgment of conviction he appeals.
The objections to the evidence set out on pages 3, 4, and 5 of the transcript, in each instance having been made after the witness had answered the question, came too late to authorize this court to review the action of the lower court. Smith v. State, 183 Ala. 10, 62 So. 864.
The defendant objected to the question asked the witness Thompson, as set out on page 3 of the transcript, but he did not object to the answer, nor did he move to exclude the same; therefore any supposed error of the court was waived besides, the question was entirely proper.
The court did not err in refusing to allow the defendant to show by the witness Sims "that the prosecution was begun in his (Sims') court by Lindley, and that Lindley was mad at Miller," it not having been shown that Lindley was the prosecutor, nor does it appear that he had testified in the case.
Charge D was fully covered by charge X; and therefore its refusal was not error. Smith v. State, 165 Ala. 50, 51 So. 610. Besides, the charge was bad. Diamond v. State, 72 So. 558.
The court did not err in refusing charge No. 1. The evidence in this case was positive, and this charge was inapplicable, as it charged on circumstantial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Britain v. State
...within the rules that obtain."). However, in this case, no prosecuting or investigating officer testified. See Miller v. State, 16 Ala.App. 3, 74 So. 840 (1917), overruled on other grounds, Stewart v. State, 18 Ala.App. 92, 89 So. 391, 395 "The chief test [of the admissibility of evidence] ......
-
Moulton v. State
...question. Empire Clothing Co. v. Hammons, 17 Ala. App. 60, 81 So. 838; Hines v. Laurendine, 17 Ala. App. 350, 84 So. 780; Miller v. State, 16 Ala. App. 3, 74 So. 840; Russell v. Bush, 196 Ala. 309, 71 So. The court did not err in allowing the solicitor to ask the witness Grimes, "What he sa......
-
Stewart v. State
... ... stated, objections overruled, and exceptions reserved. The ... answers to these questions were responsive, and therefore no ... motions to exclude the answers were necessary. Troy ... Lumber & Const. Co. v. Boswell, 186 Ala. 409, 65 So ... 141. In so far as the opinions in Miller v. State, ... 16 Ala.App. 3, 74 So. 840, and Tiller v. State, 10 ... Ala.App. 45, 64 So. 653, are in conflict with the foregoing ... it is expressly overruled ... The ... application for rehearing is granted, judgment of affirmance ... is set aside, and the judgment of the trial ... ...
-
Stowers v. State
... ... When the answer to the question is not responsive, ... [109 So. 563.] ... the trial court will not be put in error unless a motion is ... made to exclude the answer and exception is reserved to the ... action of the court in overruling the motion. Miller v ... State, 16 Ala.App. 3, 74 So. 840; White v ... State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So. 709; Haney v ... State, 20 Ala.App. 236, 101 So. 533; Ex parte Haney, 211 ... Ala. 614, 101 So. 537; Moulton v. State, 19 Ala.App ... 446, 98 So. 709; Ex parte Moulton, 210 Ala. 656, 98 So. 715 ... These ... ...