Parker v. City of Birmingham, 6 Div. 981
Decision Date | 02 August 1951 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 981 |
Citation | 36 Ala.App. 234,56 So.2d 348 |
Parties | PARKER v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Beddow & Jones, Roderick Beddow and G. Ernest Jones, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.
J. Reese Johnston, Jr., and J. M. Breckenridge, Birmingham, for appellee.
This case was tried do novo in the circuit court on appeal from a judgment of conviction in the Recorder's Court of the City of Birmingham. Defendant was convicted under count two of the complaint charging him with an assault and battery upon the person of Mrs. F. H. Twining, contrary to and in violation of Section 825 of The General City Code of Birmingham of 1944. Defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and serve 100 days hard labor for the City of Birmingham, and to pay the costs of court, or to serve a period of time in lieu thereof.
Appellant assigns as error No. 1, the overruling of his motion for a mistrial, on the ground the court had stated to the jury at the opening of the trial: 'Gentlemen of this panel, may I say to you that the case before you comes to you by reason of a statute which says that any person convicted in the Recorder's Court of the City of Birmingham has a right to appeal that case to the Circuit Court to be tried de novo.'
This question was decided adversely to appellant's contention in the cases of Fiorella v. City of Birmingham, 35 Ala.App. 384, 48 So.2d 761, certiorari denied 254 Ala. 515, 48 So.2d 768, and Smiley v. State, Ala.App., 52 So.2d 710, certiorari denied Ala.Sup., 52 So.2d 710.
Assignments 2, 3 and 4 are predicated on the action of the court in making certain remarks in the presence of the jury during the redirect examination of Mrs. Twining, the party assaulted, said statements being as follows:
'The witness has such an atmosphere that she is probably confused.
'No; that is part of the argument, and that is improper.'
'On each occasion the defendant had objected to the witness injecting voluntary statements into her answers, and a colloquy had ensued between the court, defendant's counsel and the City Attorney.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Phillips v. Beene, 16 Ala. 720, held:
We cannot conclude that prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant resulted from these remarks of the court. Supreme Court Rule 45, Code 1940, Title 7 Appendix; Woodard v. State, 253 Ala. 259, 44 So.2d 241; Selvage v. State, 29 Ala.App. 371, 196 So. 163.
In assignment of error 5, defendant insists the City was attempting to bolster by self corroboration the testimony of Mrs. Ross Wunderlich, and that the court committed reversible error in allowing the City, after objection and exception to ask Mrs. Wunderlich this question: 'Did he discuss with you your testimony and ask you to show him that paper?' This question related to a conversation between Mrs. Wunderlich and one of the attorneys for defendant.
And in assignments 7, 8 and 9, insistence is made that the court committed error in overruling defendant's objections to the following questions to the witness Doris Creed:
'What did she say in that regard?'
To this question the defendant answered: This answer which was not responsive to the question, was not prejudicial to defendant.
'I will ask you to look at this paper marked City's exhibit 'D' and tell the jury whether or not that is the number and that is the paper that Mrs. Wunderlich gave you on that occasion.'
Defendant insists the questions propounded to Miss Creed sought to elicit evidence relating to a communication by Mrs. Wunderlich to Miss Creed which was not a part of the res gestae and was hearsay and the purpose of such evidence was to bolster and corroborate the testimony of Mrs. Wunderlich.
The paper on which Mrs. Wunderlich wrote the license number was already in evidence and Miss Creed testified the paper had been in her possession until shortly before the trial when she returned it to Mrs. Wunderlich.
We quote from appellant's argument in brief on this question:
Mrs. Twining testified defendant was the man who assaulted her.
In view of the strong tendency of the evidence to establish appellant's guilt of the offense charged, we are not convinced that the action of the court in overruling the objections to the questions set out in assignments 5, 7, 8 and 9 and the admission of the corroborating evidence, probably injuriously affected the substantial rights of the defendant so as to entitle him to a reversal of this cause. Supreme Court Rule 45.
No argument appears in support of assignment of error 6 and said assignment is presumed to have been waived. Taylor v. City of Birmingham, 253 Ala. 369, 45 So.2d 53; Brooks v. City of Birmingham, 31 Ala.App. 579, 20 So.2d 115; certiorari denied 246 Ala. 232, 20 So.2d 118, and authorities cited.
The judgment appealed from is ordered affirmed.
Affirmed.
On Rehearing.
Counsel for appellant complains earnestly in his application for rehearing that we were not justified in applying Rule 45 to the effect of certain remarks by the court, the basis of assignments 2, 3 and 4. After again giving these statements careful consideration en banc we are firmly convinced that we should adhere to our former conclusion in this respect.
However, in deference to counsel's insistence, and in order to insure a full and complete review of the question by the Supreme Court we set out herein that part of the record involved in counsel's contention:
'Mr. Beddow: Judge, we don't care about all of that.
'The Court: Let her answer.
'Mr. Beddow: I don't want to----
'The Court: I think it is proper.
'Mr. Beddow: He didn't ask her about that, and we want to object to her making voluntary statements.
'The Court: Leave it in.
'Mr. Beddow: And we except to the ruling of the court.
'
'Mr. Huey: It is about this matter----
'Mr. Beddow:--And on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCovery v. State
...influence the result of the cause, or be supposed to do so. Lang v. State, 279 Ala. 169, 182 So.2d 899 (1966); Parker v. City of Birmingham, 36 Ala.App. 234, 56 So.2d 348, cert. denied, 256 Ala. 633, 56 So.2d 352 (1952). Each case rests upon its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Lockett......
-
Nichols v. State
...charge to the jury, or by a refusal to charge, or by being connected with the exclusion or admission of evidence." Parker v. City of Birmingham, 36 Ala.App. 234, 56 So.2d 348. See also, Fiorella v. City of Birmingham, 35 Ala.App. 384, 48 So.2d 761, certiorari denied 254 Ala. 515, 48 So.2d 7......
-
Nichols v. State
...Ala. 342, 113 So. 391; Finney v. Long, 216 Ala. 628, 114 So. 200; Woodard v. State, 253 Ala. 259, 44 So.2d 241; Parker v. City of Birmingham, 36 Ala.App. 234, 56 So.2d 348; Peyton v. State, 40 Ala.App. 556, 120 So.2d 415, cert. denied 270 Ala. 740, 120 So.2d 429, cert. denied 364 U.S. 870, ......
-
Bland v. State
...to the jury, or by a refusal to charge, or by being connected with the exclusion or admission of the evidence.' Parker v. City of Birmingham, 36 Ala.App. 234, 56 So.2d 348; Nichols v. State, 267 Ala. 217, 100 So.2d We don't think that the remarks of the trial judge seriously affected the ri......