Riley v. State

• Decision Date: 22 January 1890
• Citation: Riley v. State, 88 Ala. 193, 7 So. 149 (Ala. 1890)
• Parties: RILEY v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

7 So. 149

88 Ala. 193

RILEY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 22, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Butler county; JOHN P. HUBBARD, Judge.

Indictment against Shepherd Riley for burglary.On the trial defendant moved that all the witnesses be excluded from the court-room but one witness was allowed to remain.The third charge asked for by defendant and refused was: "Unless the evidence against the prisoner should be such as to exclude, to a moral certainty, every hypothesis but that of his guilt of the offense imputed to him, they must find him not guilty."Defendant was convicted, sentenced to the penitentiary for five years, and appealed.

For the opinion on appeal from the conviction of Paul Riley for the same robbery, seeante, 104.

Richardson & Steiner, for appellant.

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

STONE C.J.

The fact of excusing the juror Grant from serving on the jury without requiring him to be sworn to the truth of his excuse, is not available to defendant, unless he had objected on that ground in the court below.We cannot know that the presiding judge did not himself discover that the juror appeared to be sick.Moreover, when an objection is made in a trial court which does not in its very nature disclose the ground on which it is rested, candor and fair dealing alike require that the ground be stated.This course of practice will relieve judges of the imputation of appearing to decide what they had not in contemplation.When a general objection is made by counsel, and he refuses to disclose the ground or grounds of such objection when interrogated thereto, the court commits no error in overruling it.3 Brick.Dig. p. 443, § 567;Wallis v. Rhea,10 Ala. 451;1 Brick. Dig. p. 887, § 1189.

When witnesses are placed under the rule, it is discretionary with the presiding judge to permit exceptions to its...