Riley v. State
| Decision Date | 22 January 1890 |
| Citation | 88 Ala. 193,7 So. 149 |
| Parties | RILEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
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, see ante, 104.
Richardson & Steiner, for appellant.
W L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
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 enforcement; and to allow witnesses previously examined to be recalled at any stage of the trial is also a matter of discretion, which cannot be reviewed. Id. p. 886, § 1174.
The circuit court erred in permitting the witness Robert Black to testify that in his opinion or judgment certain tracks were made by defendant. It was for the jury to determine, from the facts deposed to, whether they were or not. Id. p. 873, §§ 978, 980, 982; 3 Brick Dig. 435, 436. Experts are an exception to the rule.
Charge No. 3, asked by defendant, ought to have been given. The other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State
...266 Ala. 694, 96 So.2d 178, cert. denied, 355 U.S. 930, 78 S.Ct. 412, 2 L.Ed.2d 414. This discretion is not reviewable. Riley v. State, 88 Ala 193, 7 So. 149; Roberts v. State, 122 Ala. 47, 25 So. 238; Beddow v. State, supra. And it is within the discretion of the trial court to excuse some......
-
Bird v. State
...it is for the jury to find, from the facts deposed to, whether they were defendant's tracks or not. Busby v. State, 77 Ala. 66; Riley v. State, 88 Ala. 193, 7 South.Rep. 149. It was erroneous for the court to allow the evidence of witnesses to express their opinions 'that the tracks seen at......
-
Weber v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
... ... train, and, as such, entitled to invoke the rule that has ... been well recognized in this state and in other ... jurisdictions, touching the duty of a carrier towards the ... passengers upon its train ... Upon ... this ... of ... Evidence, 662; Lawson, Expert and Opinion Evidence, 557 ... et seq. and 571; Cook v. Johnston, 58 Mich ... 437, 25 N.W. 388; Riley v. State, 88 Ala. 193, 7 So ... 149; Fireman's Insurance Co. v. Mohlman, 91 F ... Furthermore, ... witness had already ... ...
-
Weber v. Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
...Ev. 662; Lawson, Expert and Opinion Evidence, 557 et seq. and 571; Cook v. Johnston, 58 Mich. 437, 25 N. W. 388, 55 Am. Rep. 703;Riley v. State, 88 Ala. 193, 7 South. 149;Fireman Ins. Co. v. Mohlman, 91 Fed. 85, 33 C. C. A. 347. Furthermore, witness had already testified without objection t......