Motley v. State

• Decision Date: 08 June 1922
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 570.
• Citation: 207 Ala. 640,93 So. 508
• Parties: MOTLEY v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

93 So. 508

207 Ala. 640

MOTLEY v. STATE.

3 Div. 570.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 8, 1922

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.

Lewis Motley was convicted of rape, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Hill Hill, Whiting & Thomas, of Montgomery, for appellant.

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

SOMERVILLE J.

For the purpose of showing that the testimony of a female witness who had testified for and favorably to the defendant was biased in his favor, it has been held proper to ask her on cross-examination if illicit relations had not existed between her and the defendant. Martin v. State, 125 Ala. 64, 28 So. 92.

In the instant case, for the purpose of showing that the prosecuting witness was unfriendly and biased against the defendant, it was proposed to show, on the cross-examination of the witness, as well as on the direct examination of the defendant, that illicit relations had recently existed between them before a "falling out" or misunderstanding; one question to the witness being "Were you not mad with this man because he would not come back to you?" and another, "Is it not a fact that you were mad with him, that you had made a demand upon him that he cover a house for you on account of your illicit relations, and he declined to do it?" and still another "Isn't it a fact that you all had an illicit relation, and when it was broken up you told him you were going to get even with him?"

When a witness denies any feeling of hostility or unfriendliness towards the party against whom he has testified injuriously, it is the party's right to inquire, on cross-examination, as to the existence of any fact, including previous relationship of course, which in the light of human experience might reasonably engender hostility towards the party, or affect the witness with partisan feeling, and thus impair the trustworthiness of his testimony. So. R. R. Co. v. Harrison, 191 Ala. 436, 67 So. 597. And it has been held that, even though the witness admit unfriendly feeling, the adverse party may go further and show its foundation and extent by reference to conduct and declarations and circumstances, but without entering into particulars. Fincher v. State, 58 Ala. 215, wherein the subject is fully discussed. So the question here is simply upon the logical relevancy of such a status of illicit sexual intimacy, thus ruptured and discontinued by the defendant, to show a cause for resentment on the part of his former paramour, and thereby to establish inferentially a sentimental bias which was capable of affecting her testimony.

Without professing any profound understanding of...