Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 04 February 1909 |
| Citation | 159 Ala. 68,48 So. 668 |
| Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; S. L. Brewer, Judge.
John Smith was convicted of unlawfully selling liquor, and appeals. Affirmed.
The witness Ford, in answer to the question as to whom he was working for in the case, stated that he was a marshal of Roanoke and working in the interest of the Law and Order League of the county, and as marshal desired to see the law in force. The state was permitted to ask the witness Cofield "You have served a term in the penitentiary, haven't you, Isam?" and his answer thereto was that he had. To the question, "What was you sent to the pentitentiary for?" came the answer, "For murder," and to the question, "How long did you stay in the penitentiary?" was the answer, "Six and a half years." The following charge was refused to the defendant: "I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that you cannot convict a man on any sort of evidence; but the law itself demands that the proof must show beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant at the bar is guilty as charged else you should acquit him.
Hooten & Overton, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted for selling liquor in violation of the prohibition law in Randolph county. McKissick, the principal witness for the state testified that he bought a quart of whisky from the defendant on Tuesday after the first Sunday in June, and for it paid him $1. On cross-examination this witness was asked this question: "You were arrested for selling whisky in Roanoke about the 1st of June yourself, weren't you?" The court sustained the solicitor's objection to the question. In this ruling there was no error. Smith's Case, 129 Ala. 89, 29 So. 699, 87 Am. St. Rep. 47; Gordon's Case, 140 Ala. 29, 36 So. 1009; Wilkerson's Case, 140 Ala. 165, 37 So. 265; Williams' Case, 144 Ala. 14, 40 So. 405.
If the court erred in sustaining the state's objection to the question asked witness Ford, "Who are you at work for in this case?" the error was without injury, as the subsequent testimony of this witness is a full answer to the question.
No error is involved in the rulings of the court overruling objections made to questions propounded to defendant's witness Cofield by the state. Castleberry's Case, 135 Ala. 24, 33 So. 431; Code 1907, §§ 4008, 4009, and cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...Reversed and remanded. On Rehearing by the State. In both of the cases of Smith v. State, 161 Ala. 94, 49 So. 1029 and Smith v. State, 159 Ala. 68, 48 So. 668, the defendants were convicted of violating the prohibiting the sale of liquors, and sought to reverse the judgments of the trial co......
-
Kilpatrick v. State
...where proof that the crime involves moral turpitude is not shown, and the court properly sustained the objection thereto. Smith v. State, 159 Ala. 68, 48 So. 668. As to the disallowance by the court of the introduction in evidence of a witness' prior arrest, without designating the particul......
-
Baugh v. State
...v. State, 206 Ala. 180, 89 So. 605; Pippin v. State, 197 Ala. 615, 73 So. 340; Gillman v. State, 165 Ala. 135, 51 So. 722; Smith v. State, 159 Ala. 68, 48 So. 668; v. State, 140 Ala. 29, 36 So. 1009; Clifton v. State, 73 Ala. 473. The rule stated in Ex parte Marshall has been often followed......
-
Pinkerton v. State
...v. State, 206 Ala. 180, 89 So. 605; Pippin v. State, 197 Ala. 613, 73 So. 340; Gillman v. State, 165 Ala. 135, 51 So. 722; Smith v. State, 159 Ala. 68, 48 So. 668; v. State, 140 Ala. 29, 36 So. 1009; Clifton v. State, 73 Ala. 473. 'The rule stated in Ex parte Marshall has been often followe......