Pruitt v. State

• Decision Date: 11 June 1891
• Parties: PRUITT v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

9 So. 406

92 Ala. 41

PRUITT v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 11, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Colbert county; H. C. SPEAKE, Judge.

William Pruitt was indicted, tried, and convicted of burglary for breaking into the dwelling-house of one J. C. Giddens. The court in its general charge to the jury said "that under the statutes of our state defendants were allowed to testify, and that their evidence must be weighed as that of other witnesses, taking into consideration the fact that defendants are interested in the result of the prosecution,-that, if convicted, they had to suffer the penalty." The defendant then asked the following charges, and duly excepted to the court's refusal to give them: "(1) Gentlemen of the jury, I charge you that the statement of the solicitor in his argument that the evidence of the defendant is the meanest and poorest evidence in the world is not the law. (2) If the jury believes the evidence in this case, they must find the defendant not guilty."

Kirk & Almon, for appellant.

W L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

COLEMAN J.

Whatever rule may prevail in other states or countries, it is settled law in this state that where a witness has been examined in a criminal trial, and cross-examined, or the opportunity afforded for cross-examination, by the party charged, and the witness dies, or becomes insane, or has gone beyond the jurisdiction of the state permanently, or for such an indefinite time that his return is merely contingent or conjectural, the testimony of such witness may be proven on a subsequent trial. 1 Greenl. Ev. (14th Ed.) § 163, and note; Long v. Davis, 18 Ala. 801; Marler v State, 67 Ala. 55; Lowe v. State, 86 Ala. 52, 5 South. Rep. 435; South v. State, 86 Ala. 617, 6 South. Rep. 52. The predicate in this case for the introduction of such testimony sufficiently complied with the requirements of the law. The witness called to prove the testimony of the absent witness stated that "Clem Bates [the absent witness] left about two months ago, and went to the state of Arkansas, as I was informed. Said Bates is still absent from the state." It was shown that the witness was legally sworn and examined on a preliminary trial for commitment, and also on habeas corpus proceedings. Prima facie, the evidence was admissible. It was not competent to show that the absent witness had made statements different or contradictory to those proven to have been...