Murph v. State
| Citation | 153 Ala. 67,45 So. 208 |
| Parties | MURPH v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1907 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; John T. Lackland, Judge.
Andy Murph was convicted of selling liquor without a license, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Hybart & Burns, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant, Andy Murph, was indicted for selling spirituous vinous or malt liquors without a license.
The state having announced ready for trial, the defendant stated he was not ready, because he had just learned that the main witness for the state, whose name was Henry Jones, had been convicted in Dallas county, and upon conviction had been sentenced to the penitentiary; and asked the court to continue the case until defendant could get proof of the conviction of said witness. The court overruled the application for a continuance, and required defendant to go to trial. It was within the discretion of the court to permit or refuse the continuance, and that discretion, as exercised in the case, is not reviewable. House v. State, 139 Ala. 132, 36 So. 732; Walker v. State, 117 Ala. 85 23 So. 670.
The witness, Jones, was present, and being introduced by the state, testified that he purchased, within a year past, at defendant's house, in Monroe county, Alabama, two pints of whisky; that he was on his way to church, and that Ed Jefferson was with him, and witness got drunk on the whisky he purchased. He was asked by defendant, if he had even been convicted of a crime and sentenced to the penitentiary, and he answered, "No." He was not asked, what the alleged crime was, nor for how long he was sentenced to the penitentiary. He was then asked, for the purpose of contradicting him, laying a proper predicate as to time and place, if he had not stated in the presence of John McKinley and two other witnesses that he had been tried and convicted in Dallas county for the offense of murder and sentenced to the penitentiary, and he answered, "No."
Witness McKinley was offered by the defendant, the object of whose evidence was, to contradict the witness, Jones, who testified that he had not been convicted of murder. The question was within the predicate laid, but the witness stated that Jones said he was convicted for "shooting a man," though whether he killed him or not was not stated. On objection of the state, the court excluded the answer; and in this there was no error....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Couch v. Hutcherson
...... . . When. the driver of the truck (Prince) was being cross-examined, a. predicate was laid to him as follows: "State whether or. not at about noon on the day of the accident and after it had. occurred you went into a restaurant run by Mrs. Wallace. Donaldson on ... made to the impeaching witness. McClellan v. Lyle-Taylor. Grain Co., 205 Ala. 59, 87 So. 596; Murph v. State, 153 Ala. 67, 45 So. 208; Bridges v. State, 225 Ala. 81(12), 142 So. 56; Pittman v. Calhoun, 231 Ala. 460(7), 165 So. 391; Holmes v. ......
-
Duck v. State
...* * * that was liable to be damaged" and "other corn * * * that was exposed to the weather" was considered objectionable. In Murph v. State, 153 Ala. 67, 45 So. 208, the predicatory question was, had not the main prosecution witness on a certain occasion said he had been tried and convicted......
-
Walker v. State
......9, 60 Am. Dec. 442; Southern Ry. Co. v. Williams, 113 Ala. 620, 21 So. 328. . . If the. predicate is as to an exact specific contradictory statement,. and does not embrace one "of like import" or. "in substance," it is error to allow such question. to the impeaching witness. Murph v. State, 153 Ala. 67, 45 So. 208; McClellan v. Lyle-Taylor Grain Co.,. 205 Ala. 59, 87 So. 596. The reason for this is, if the. question put to the impeaching witness had been put to the. witness to be impeached, it might have provoked a different. answer, or a reasonable explanation. . . ......
-
Bridges v. State
...statement, and does not embrace one 'of like import' or 'in substance,' it is error to allow such question. *** Murph v. State, 153 Ala. 67, 45 So. 208; McClellan v. Lyle-Taylor Grain Co., 205 Ala. 59, So. 596. The reason for this is, if the question put to the impeaching witness had been p......