Riley v. State

• Decision Date: 06 February 1902
• Citation: 132 Ala. 13,31 So. 731
• Parties: RILEY v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

31 So. 731

132 Ala. 13

RILEY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 6, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Dale county; A. A. Evans, Judge.

Man Riley was convicted, under Cr. Code, § 5065, of falsely and maliciously imputing want of chastity to a woman, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant was tried and convicted under an indictment which charged that he "did falsely and maliciously speak of and concerning Mattie Newsome, in the presence of Archie Evans and Ed Cutchen, charging her with a want of chastity in substance as follows: That Archie Newsome was keeping his sister, Mattie Newsome,--against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." On the trial of the case the state introduced Archie Evans as a witness, who testified that before the finding of this indictment he and Ed Cutchen and defendant were walking along together, when the following conversation, as detailed in the bill of exceptions occurred: "Defendant remarked to him (Archie Evans) that, if he (defendant) were in his place, he would not go to Porter Newsome's any more; that Archie Newsome was keeping his sister, Mattie; and that he (Evans) asked him how he knew, and he said Bob Hunt told him so." Upon the introduction of Hayden Vann as a witness, he was asked the following question: "If, going home from Ozark, at the last term of the circuit court, with George Bell, Ivey Cutchen, and the defendant, he heard the defendant say anything?" The defendant objected to this question. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The witness answered "that, in talking about this case which was then pending in court, defendant said it was a fact that Archie Newsome did have criminal connection with his sister, and he would prove it on him at the next term of the court, and that no threats were made against defendant, nor any inducement or reward offered him to make such statement, and that said statement was made voluntarily and that defendant was drunk at the time." The defendant objected to this answer, and moved to exclude it from the jury upon the ground that it was immaterial and irrelevant testimony. The court overruled the objection and motion, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted. The same questions were asked Isaac Cutchen and George Bell, each of whom testified to the same facts. The defendant separately objected to each of the questions and answers, and moved the court to exclude the answer from the jury, upon the grounds that it was irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent evidence. The court overruled each of said objections and motions, and the defendant separately excepted. The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, testified, as stated in the bill of exceptions, as follows: "That, at the time spoken of he told Archie Evans that, if he were in his place, he would not go to Porter Newsome's any more; that he had heard that Archie Newsome was keeping his sister, Mattie; and that Bud Spivey told him that Bob Hunt told him so." The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: "(1) If the jury believe from all the evidence that defendant had probable and reasonable grounds for making the statement imputing to Mattie Newsome a want of chastity, if they believe any such statement was made, they must find him not guilty. (2) Before the jury can find the defendant guilty as charged, they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis, from the evidence, that a...