Phillips v. State, 5 Div. 900.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 900. |
| Citation | 145 So. 169,25 Ala.App. 286 |
| Parties | PHILLIPS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tallapoosa County; W. B. Bowling, Judge.
O. W Phillips was convicted or operating an automobile while intoxicated, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
A. L Patterson, of Alexander City, for appellant.
Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the offense denounced by Code 1923, § 3324-operating motor vehicle while intoxicated.
His automobile was parked on one of the streets of Alexander City on a Saturday afternoon. He got into it, backed it out from its parking place, and let it come into collision with a car occupied and driven by one Dan Harris.
The testimony on the part of the state tended to show that appellant was intoxicated at the time above. Appellant's testimony was to a contrary effect. The issues were for the jury.
One E H. Chapman, a deputy sheriff, testified that he went, apparently immediately after the collision, to the scene of the occurrence; and that appellant and Harris were both there when he got there. He was asked by the solicitor this question: "Was Harris' car damaged there?" Upon objection by appellant's counsel, the solicitor explained that the question was put in that form for the purpose of fixing "the time and the place." Whereupon the court overruled the objection, and allowed the witness to answer the question; the answer being, "Yes, sir." We think, and hold, this action of the court to be reversible error. Proper exception was reserved.
There was eased into the evidence, without objection, the statement by Harris that appellant "never did have my (Harris') car fixed." Of course, it was immaterial to any issue in the case as to whether or not Harris' car was "damaged." But, even if it had not been, no witness should have been allowed to testify as to his conclusion that said car was "damaged." He should have merely stated the facts. And, while testimony as to the fact that there was a coming together (collision) of the car of appellant with the car of Harris was permissible to be given in evidence as a part of the res gestæ, etc., still, as above indicated, we are of the opinion that appellant's cause was injured by the admission of the irrelevant, at least immaterial, testimony of said Chapman that Harris' car was "damaged." Neither do we think it was legally permissible to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nagem v. City of Phenix City
...that he had no access to liquor in the meantime. Id. citing Gamble v. State, 36 Ala.App. 581, 60 So.2d 696 (1952); Phillips v. State, 25 Ala.App. 286, 145 So. 169 (1932)." E. Fisher and R. Reeder, Vehicle Traffic Law, p. 179 An accurate statement of this same principle as applied by the Ala......
-
State v. Boag
...1232, 1234, 206 N.W. 133, 42 A.L.R. 1496; Holley v. State, 25 Ala.App. 260, 144 So. 535; Id., 225 Ala. 597, 144 So. 537; Phillips v. State, 25 Ala.App. 286, 145 So. 169; Austin v. State, 47 Ga.App. 191, 170 S.E. In other words, the elements of the crime, under the statute, are, first, the d......
-
Montgomery v. State
...584, 90 So.2d 98; Gamble v. State, 36 Ala.App. 581, 60 So.2d 696; Rainey v. State, 31 Ala.App. 66, 12 So.2d 106; Phillips v. State, 25 Ala.App. 286, 145 So. 169; Turner v. State, 26 Ala.App. 397, 160 So. 'When the defense objected to the questions seeking testimony as to appellant's conditi......
-
Scott v. Scott Paper Co.
...fact finding. Consequently, though Rich had been accused of driving a company truck while intoxicated, the rule of Phillips v. State, 25 Ala.App. 286, 145 So. 169, hn. 3, supported the circuit court in reducing the disqualification to that falling under paragraph 2 of subsection C of § 214.......