Robinson v. State, 3 Div. 237
Decision Date | 19 December 1967 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 237 |
Parties | Hilliard ROBINSON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Goodwyn, Smith & Bowman and Charles M. Crook, Montgomery, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Walter S. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant stands convicted of the offense of grand larceny, with punishment fixed at three years in the penitentiary.
The question of the sufficiency of the evidence is not presented. There was no motion to exclude the state's evidence, no request for the affirmative charge and no motion for a new trial. Parker v. State, 37 Ala.App. 169, 65 So.2d 215; Waldrop v. State, 41 Ala.App. 237, 130 So.2d 355.
It is insisted that the defendant was denied his constitutional right to a copy of the indictment. Article 1 Section 6 Constitution 1901. The record reflects that the following occurred at arraignment:
The foregoing does not show that a formal demand for a copy of the indictment was made by the defendant and that his demand was denied. Howard v. State, 146 Ala. 149, 41 So. 301; Morse v. State, 22 Ala.App. 93, 112 So. 806.
Defendant's character witness, Earl Thornton, testified he knew defendant's reputation in the community where he lived and that it was good. He was asked, ' The answer was,
On cross examination of this witness he was asked if he knew defendant was convicted and served thirteen months in the penitentiary for the manufacture of liquor. The witness answered: The following occurred:
'
* * *
* * *
(This question was not answered)
* * *
* * *
Objections to these questions on the grounds that the liquor offenses did not involve moral turpitude and called for witness' knowledge of particular acts or conduct of defendant, were overruled.
In Peyton v. State, 40 Ala.App. 556, 120 So.2d 415, the court stated that a defendant may be examined only as to his prior convictions of crimes involving moral turpitude. But on cross examination of character witnesses presented by defendant to establish his good reputation, it is permisible to ask
A character witness may not be cross examined as to his own knowledge of particular acts of bad conduct by the accused, but may be asked whether he has heard of specific acts of misconduct on the part of the defendant.
That the liquor offenses did not involve moral turpitude was not a valid ground of objection to the interrogation of the character witness. Peyton v. State, supra. Besides, the defendant himself had first introduced the evidence as to the whiskey offenses.
Although the witness was questioned as to his knowledge of specific acts of bad conduct by defendant, his answer were that he had heard defendant had been involved in whiskey transactions. His negative answers to the remaining questions rendered these questions harmless. Ellis v. State, 39 Ala. 325, 100 So.2d 725, cert. den. 267 Ala. 235, 100 So.2d 732.
Adolphus Trimble under indictment for stealing the same cattle defendant was charged with taking, was placed upon the stand as the State's witness. He testified defendant rented a truck and witness and others helped defendant load the cows from a catch pen at defendant's home and that he sold them at Hooper's Stockyard. On cross examination the witness stated he testified as a witness for the state at a former trial of defendant for this offense. This question was asked:
'
The state's objection was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sprinkle v. State
...a new trial, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction is not presented on appeal. Robinson v. State, 44 Ala.App. 206, 205 So.2d 524 (1967); Alexander v. State, 281 Ala. 457, 204 So.2d 488 (1967); Anderson v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 339 So.2d 166 (1976). Yet, hav......
-
Houston v. State, 6 Div. 175
...but, the character witness's personal knowledge of specific misdeeds is not subject to inquiry on cross-examination. Robinson v. State, 44 Ala.App. 206, 205 So.2d 524; Johnson v. State, 260 Ala. 276, 69 So.2d 854. Numerous decisions have approved questions where the character witness was as......
-
Eady v. State
...for review. Grant v. State, 46 Ala.App. 232, 239 So.2d 903; Robinson v. State, 46 Ala.App. 684, 248 So.2d 583; Robinson v. State, 44 Ala.App. 206, 205 So.2d 524. In a prosecution for larceny, where non-consent is essential, there must be direct proof from the person whose non-consent is nec......
-
Lebo v. State
...that, in light of the negative answers, which were given by the witness, such questions were thereby rendered harmless. Robinson v. State, 44 Ala.App. 206, 205 So.2d 524; Peyton v. State, 40 Ala.App. 556, 120 So.2d 415, cert. denied 270 Ala. 740, 120 So.2d 429; Ellis v. State, 39 Ala.App. 3......