Russell v. State
| Decision Date | 17 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 429. |
| Parties | RUSSELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. C. B. Gwin, Judge.
John Russell was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals. Affirmed.
Mathews & Mathews, of Bessemer, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and O. B. Cornelius, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The appellant (defendant in the court below) was charged in the affidavit with selling or keeping for sale prohibited liquors or beverages, and with having in his possession such prohibited liquors. There were two counts in the affidavit and the jury returned a general verdict of guilty.
The evidence for the state was directed to showing that a deputy sheriff met the defendant on the road in beat 1, Jefferson county, and that he had two hot water bags around his neck each containing about one-half gallon of whisky; that he also had a sack with a jug of whisky in it. The defendant denied having in his possession any prohibited liquors.
The question propounded by defendant's counsel to a witness for the defendant, "Does John [meaning the defendant] work regularly every day?" was not material to any issue in the case. The issue presented was whether the defendant had in his possession prohibited liquors at the time testified to by the state's witness.
Facts which do not tend to prove or disprove the matter in issue are not admissible. It is apparent the evidence proposed to be introduced had no relation to the offense with which the defendant was charged and could not afford any reasonable presumption of his guilt or innocence and was properly excluded. McCormack v. State, 102 Ala. 161, 15 So 438.
The court did not err in sustaining the state's objection to the question propounded to defendant on direct examination by his counsel, "Did he [referring to another man with the defendant at the time] run away from there after they got after you?" The question was leading. The permission of leading questions by a party to his own witness is in the discretion of the trial court, and its discretion exercised in permitting or refusing to allow leading questions is not revisable on appeal. Sayre v. Durwood, 35 Ala. 247; McDonald v. State, 118 Ala. 672, 20 So. 672; Brassell v. State, 91 Ala. 45, 8 So. 679. The question was not material to any issue involved in the case on trial.
The defendant objected to the following portion of the argument of state's solicitor to the jury: "If...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisher v. State
...tended to prove nor to disprove any matter in issue and for that reason were inadmissible, and it was error to admit same. Russell v. State, 20 Ala.App. 68, 101 So. 71; Wigmore on Evidence, secs. The court erred in permitting the witness, Bob Gant, to testify with reference to particular ac......
- Whitehead v. State
-
Peppers v. State
...possession of a large quantity of illegal liquor that a defendant had it for the purpose of sale, and not for private use. Russell v. State, 20 Ala.App. 68, 101 So. 71. Subsection (4) of our vagrancy statute, supra, relates only to selling prohibited liquors, and not to possession for the p......
- Boswell v. Linder