Pittman v. State
Decision Date | 19 December 1907 |
Citation | 153 Ala. 1,45 So. 245 |
Parties | PITTMAN v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; John T. Lackland, Judge.
Walter Pittman was convicted of an assault and battery, and he appeals.Affirmed.
See42 So. 993.
The defendant was indicted for assault with intent, and convicted of assault and battery.The bill of exceptions shows with reference to Stallworth the following: While the defendant was testifying for himself, defendant's counsel asked him: "Was there any conversation between Mr Collins and yourself in regard to the tracks around the window that morning after you returned to the house?"And "Did they accuse you of having gone into that room?"And "What conversation, if any, took place between you and Mr. Collins at his house the next morning when you returned there?"In arguing the casethe defendant's attorneys called the attention of the jury to the manner in which the sister of the prosecutrix testified on the stand, and to the fact that she smiled when she looked at and referred to the defendant.The solicitor in his closing remarks said: Exception was reserved to this argument.The two charges referred to required the acquittal of the higher offense charged.
Barnett & Bugg, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
If under any circumstances defendant was entitled to adduce the testimony of Stallworth, the...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Davis v. State
... ... State, supra, at 1180. The rule is different if the subject has been injected into the case by the other party ... Replies in kind are generally permissible. Pittman v. State, 153 Ala. 1, 45 ... So. 245 (1907); Bates v. State, 468 So.2d 207 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). Allowing replies in kind rests within the discretion of the trial court, McCullough v. State, 357 So.2d 397 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), and wide latitude is usually given regarding replies in kind. Richardson ... ...
-
Stallworth v. State
...the prosecutor was free to comment on the credibility of the DNA evidence. "`Replies in kind are generally permissible. Pittman v. State, 153 Ala. 1, 45 So. 245 (1907); Bates v. State, 468 So.2d 207 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). Allowing replies in kind rests within the discretion of the trial court, ......
-
Wiggins v. State
...and the prosecutor's.” Ex parte Musgrove, 638 So.2d 1360, 1368 (Ala.1993).“Replies in kind are generally permissible. Pittman v. State, 153 Ala. 1, 45 So. 245 (1907) ; Bates v. State, 468 So.2d 207 (Ala.Crim.App.1985). Allowing replies in kind rests within the discretion of the trial court,......
-
Chatom v. State
...As this court stated in Davis v. State, 494 So.2d 851 (Ala.Cr.App.1986): "Replies in kind are generally permissible. Pittman v. State, 153 Ala. 1, 45 So. 245 (1907); Bates v. State, 468 So.2d 207 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). Allowing replies in kind rests within the discretion of the trial court, McC......