Prescott v. State
| Decision Date | 16 December 1924 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 964 |
| Citation | 103 So. 75,20 Ala.App. 466 |
| Parties | PRESCOTT et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 20, 1925
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; W.L. Parks, Judge.
Dothan Prescott and Ike Prescott were convicted of violating the prohibition law, and they appeal. Affirmed.
Rowe & Rowe, of Elba, for appellants.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
It is first insisted that the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial, because no proof was made of the venue. While this may be true, it is admitted that the defendant did not comply with circuit court rule 35, by bringing the omission to the attention of the trial court. Since the question was not properly raised on the trial, it cannot be raised for the first time on motion to set aside the verdict. Wadsworth v. State, 18 Ala.App. 352, 92 So. 245.
It is now insisted that the court erred in sustaining the state's objection to the question propounded to a state's witness on cross-examination:
On the cross-examination of Homer Prescott, son of one of the defendants, he was asked:
"The officers went there to your place one time, and found some rum on your place, didn't they?"
Objection to this question was overruled. The witness then answered:
A wide latitude must, of necessity, be allowed on cross-examination, and for that reason the court does not hold the ruling above to have been prejudicial error. Stevenson v. State, 18 Ala.App. 174, 90 So. 140. Moreover, the answer was favorable to defendant, and therefore, if error, the question did not injuriously affect the defendant.
After reading and considering the whole record, we are of the opinion that no substantial rights of the defendant have been injuriously affected, and therefore, the record being free from error, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Davis v. State
-
Duncan v. State
... ... The duty rests upon the appellant to present a record which ... shows error, and if the crime charged was committed in a ... county other than that of trial, the court's attention ... must be directed to that point by objections to testimony or ... by requested charge. Prescott v. State, 20 Ala.App ... 466, 103 So. 75; Mitchell v. State, 19 Ala.App. 248, ... 96 So. 653; Dawkins v. State, 19 Ala.App. 589, 99 ... So. 661; Parcus v. State, 19 Ala.App. 592, 99 So ... The ... opinion is extended, and the application is overruled ... Application ... ...
-
Stephens v. State
...Circuit Court Rule 35. This necessity cannot be obviated by raising it for the first time on motion for a new trial. Prescott v. State, 20 Ala.App. 466, 103 So. 75. Counsel urges that the State failed to prove that the jug contained five gallons or more of Some of the officers testified tha......
-
Simmons v. State, 4 Div. 143
...called to the court's attention during the trial, and cannot be raised for the first time on motion for a new trial. Prescott v. State, 20 Ala.App. 466, 103 So. 75. The appellant cites the case of Jacobs v. State, supra, as being directly in point here as to the question of venue, and insis......