Rhodes v. State, 6 Div. 774
| Decision Date | 11 June 1936 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 774,775 |
| Citation | 232 Ala. 509,168 So. 869 |
| Parties | RHODES v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Robt. J. Wheeler Judge.
J.D Rhodes was convicted, under two indictments, of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
D.S Satterwhite and Jas. B. Smiley, both of Birmingham, for appellant.
A.A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Clarence M. Small, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The rules of evidence touching the direct and cross-examination of an expert witness on the question of insanity of the accused on trial for crime were fully laid down in Parrish v. State, 139 Ala. 16, 36 So. 1012, and followed in Wilson v. State, 195 Ala. 675, 71 So. 115. They need not be repeated here further than to make application in this case.
Dr. J.T. Dawkins, the only physician examined, was introduced by the state. On direct examination he testified he had been a practicing physician in the community for 24 years; that he had known defendant 15 to 16 years and had been his family physician; that witness had not seen and talked with him frequently during the past year; that during former years, while he lived in Ensley, witness saw him quite often, and during those years formed an opinion as to his sanity. Witness then said: "In my opinion he is sane."
On cross-examination witness said:
On further cross-examination the witness stated his recent contacts with defendant were not sufficient to form an opinion, and witness' opinion was formed from knowing him for 14 or 15 years.
Thereupon, it appears, a hypothetical question was asked incorporating several recent acts and incidents which had been testified to by other witnesses as tending to show insanity. To this witness answered he did not know that he could express an opinion from a medical standpoint based on these facts. Thereupon, counsel for defendant added further incidents in evidence, and asked whether all these facts would, in witness' opinion, show sanity or insanity.
Objection was made to this question on the ground the question did not include a further fact, which the state considered would shed light on the question. This led to a prolonged discussion, the court and counsel participating, resulting in a ruling by the court that the hypothetical question must include all of the material facts and circumstances as testified to in support of the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Defendant's counsel insisted on an answer to the question as framed. The court sustained the objection, and exception was reserved.
Even on direct examination counsel is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mims v. United States
...102 U.S.App. D.C. 227, 252 F.2d at page 617, supra, note 8. 14 Application of Big Lost River Irr. Dist., supra, note 2. 15 Rhodes v. State, 232 Ala. 509, 168 So. 869; Pickett v. State, 37 Ala.App. 410, 71 So.2d 102, 106, cert. den. 260 Ala. 699. 71 So.2d 107; Buckhanon v. State, 151 Ga. 827......
-
Smarr v. State
...opinion that accused was sane. Stallworth v. Ward, 249 Ala. 505, 31 So.2d 324; White v. State, 237 Ala. 610, 188 So. 388; Rhodes v. State, 232 Ala. 509, 168 So. 869; Kilpatrick v. State, 213 Ala. 358, 104 So. 656; Porter v. State, 140 Ala. 87, 37 So. 81. This conclusion is not in conflict w......
-
Box v. Box
...witness. Stallworth v. Ward, 249 Ala. 505, 507, 31 So.2d 324. This has been the rule from our early judicial history. Rhodes v. State, 232 Ala. 509, 168 So. 869; Watson v. Anderson, 13 Ala. 202, 204. See also 22 C.J. 668, § 759; 32 C.J.S., Evidence, § It should be mentioned here that, while......
-
Stallworth v. Ward
...in law as expert witnesses on the question of the subject's sanity. Towles v. Pettus, 244 Ala. 192(2), 12 So.2d 357; Rhodes v. State, 232 Ala. 509, 168 So. 869; White v. State, 237 Ala. 610, 188 So. Porter v. State, 140 Ala. 87, 37 So. 81. The opinions of these professional men should be ac......