Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 15 May 1913 |
| Citation | 8 Ala.App. 435,62 So. 372 |
| Parties | ROBINSON. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 6, 1913
Appeal from City Court of Bessemer; J.C.B. Gwin, Judge.
James M. Robinson was convicted of keeping a gaming table, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The indictment charged that Jim Robertson, alias Jim Robinson whose name to the grand jury is otherwise unknown, etc kept, exhibited, or was interested in keeping or exhibiting a gaming table for gaming. The plea set up that his name was not Jim Robinson, and that he had always been known and called James M. Robinson, or Jim M. Robinson, but nothing else. The evidence tended to show that the officers went into the defendant's place of business and found the room full of negroes and white men, and found defendant at the end of a pool table which was marked off as a crap table, and that defendant and others were shooting what was known as bank dice or bank crap game.
Scott & Aldridge, of Bessemer, for appellant.
R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant's plea of misnomer in effect admitted that the name by which the defendant was indicted was his true name, for it set up his true name to be "James Robinson and that he has always been known and called James M. Robinson or Jim M. Robinson," and the defendant was indicted under an alias dictus alleging his name to be Jim Robinson. Omission of the middle initial "M" was not material. Taylor v. State, 100 Ala. 68, 14 So. 875; Woods v. State, 133 Ala. 162, 31 So. 984. If the grand jury returning the indictment had knowledge of facts as to the true name of the defendant, which was stated contra and as "otherwise unknown," this was a matter that could have been availed of by the defendant under the plea of not guilty, and no effort is shown to have been made on the trial to offer proof to establish such fact.
The objections made to the testimony of the state's witness Parker are shown not to have been made to the questions, but to the answers of the witness. The answers for anything appearing were responsive to questions propounded to the witness, and a party is not permitted thus to speculate on what the testimony will be, and then move to exclude it. Kramer v. Compton, 166 Ala. 216, 52 So. 351; Lewy Art Co. v. Agricola, 169 Ala. 60, 53 So. 145; A.C.C. & I. Co. v. Heald, 168 Ala. 626, 53 So. 162.
There was sufficient evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castona v. State
...The defendant cannot speculate on what a witness will say, and, when unfavorable, object and have the answer excluded. Robinson v. State, 8 Ala.App. 435, 62 So. 372; Humphries v. State, 2 Ala.App. 1, 56 So. 72; Malone v. State, 16 Ala.App. 185, 76 So. 469. Besides, the objection was general......
-
Malone v. State
... ... question asked a witness, defendant is not entitled to have ... the answer stricken on motion. Sanders v. State, 181 ... Ala. 35, 61 So. 336. The defendant cannot speculate on what a ... witness will say, and, when unfavorable, object and have the ... answer excluded. Robinson v. State, 8 Ala.App. 435, ... 62 So. 372; Humphries v. State, 2 Ala.App. 1, 56 So ... 72. Besides, the objection was general, and was therefore ... properly overruled. Roden v. State, 13 Ala.App. 105, ... 69 So. 366; Reid v. State, 168 Ala. 123, 53 So. 254 ... There ... was no ... ...
-
Murry v. State, 2 Div. 222
...middle name is immaterial. Pace v. State, 69 Ala. 231, 44 Am.Rep. 513; Higginbotham v. State, 262 Ala. 236, 78 So.2d 637; Robinson v. State, 8 Ala.App. 435, 62 So. 372; Blackmon v. State, 46 Ala.App. 274, 240 So.2d 696, cert. denied, 286 Ala. 733, 240 So.2d 699; James v. State, 246 Ala. 617......
-
Bryant v. State
... ... inferred the defendant's guilt, and sufficient prima ... facie to overcome the presumption of innocence, the court ... committed no error in refusing the affirmative charge ... requested by the defendant. Jones v. State, 90 Ala ... 630, 8 So. 383, 24 Am.St.Rep. 850; Robinson v ... State, 8 Ala.App. 435, 62 So. 372; Minto v ... State, 8 Ala.App. 306, 62 So. 376; Fulton v ... State, 8 Ala.App. 257, 62 So. 959 ... Charges ... 341, 5, and K were properly refused, besides being covered by ... given charge G.A.G.S.R.R. Co. v. Robinson, 183 Ala ... 265, ... ...