Smothers v. State

Decision Date05 November 1957
Docket Number6 Div. 420
Citation39 Ala.App. 292,98 So.2d 66
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
PartiesWilliam Lee SMOTHERS v. STATE.

Rogers, Howard & Redden, Birmingham, for appellant.

John Patterson, Atty. Gen., Bernard F. Sykes and Geo. Young, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

HARWOOD, Presiding Judge.

This appellant has been found guilty, and adjudged guilty, under an indictment charging that he 'did own a pistol or have one in his possession or under his control having theretofore been convicted in this State of a crime of violence, namely robbery against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.'

The evidence presented by the State tends to show that on 30 September 1955 the appellant was arrested in Leeds, Alabama, while driving an automobile.

Over appellant's objection testimony was elicited from the arresting officers that at the time of his arrest there were on the seat beside the appellant three yellow masks, 'like a Halloween mask that covered your face,' and a pair of rubber surgical gloves.

Upon further search of appellant's automobile a locked metal box was found in the trunk compartment. This box was unlocked by appellant with a key appellant had in his possession. In the box were two loaded pistols, and a box of cartridges.

Mrs. Lillian Purvis, Minute Clerk on the staff of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, testified that she prepared the minutes of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County for the 1948 January term of that court. Over appellant's objection Mrs. Purvis was permitted to read the Criminal Minutes which showed that in 1948 this appellant had been found guilty on five separate charges of robbery.

These records were never introduced into evidence.

The State also introduced as a witness Mr. Clyde Coupland, a bailiff of the Circuit Court, who, over appellant's objection, was permitted to testify that he was present in court on 7 June 1948, at which time this appellant plead guilty to five cases of robbery.

The defense presented as a witness Mrs. Mary L. Reid. By appropriate questions the defense sought to obtain testimony from this witness to the effect that she had been employed by the appellant in September 1955 in a variety store he operated in Montgomery; that Halloween masks and rubber gloves such as those found in appellant's automobile were carried in stock in the store; that on 18 September 1955 the stock was moved from the store and masks and rubber gloves similar to those found in appellant's automobile on 30 September 1955 were placed in his automobile.

The State's objections to each and every such question addressed to Mrs. Reid were sustained.

Likewise, the State's objections to similar questions addressed to defense witness Howard Bruce Hinds were sustained, it having been first shown that Hinds operated a small grocery store on Bainbridge Street in Montgomery.

The court stated that he though that evidence along the lines sought from Mrs. Reid and Mr. Hinds was inadmissible, and after these witnesses had been presented appellant's counsel announced that in view of the court's ruling he would not present several more witnesses he had who would testify to facts sought to be shown by the witnesses Reid and Hinds.

The defense also offered as a witness Reuben Smothers, a brother of the accused, who testified to the effect that he was the owner of the pistols found in the box in the appellant's car; that he had placed the box and pistols in the car a short while before appellant's arrest and had failed to tell his brother of the pistols in the hurry of returning the automobile to the appellant.

The rulings of the court in connection with the witnesses Reid and Hinds were erroneous in that they prevented the accused from showing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Griffin v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 10, 1999
    ...Moreover, "`[a] party has "the right to rebut evidence offered against him, be it relevant or irrelevant." Smothers v. State, 39 Ala.App. 292, 295, 98 So.2d 66, 68 (1957).'" Smith v. State, 756 So.2d 892, 929 (Ala.Cr.App.1998), quoting Childers v. State, 607 So.2d 350, 352 (Ala.Cr. App.1992......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 19, 1997
    ...So. 40, 41 (1918). A party has `the right to rebut evidence offered against him, be it relevant or irrelevant.' Smothers v. State, 39 Ala.App. 292, 295, 98 So.2d 66, 68 (1957)." Childers v. State, 607 So.2d 350, 352 (Ala. Cr.App.1992), reversed on other grounds, 640 So.2d 16 The State also ......
  • Page v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • October 4, 1960
    ...by this witness such fact could only be established by the court record of the conviction, or a certified copy thereof. Smothers v. State, 39 Ala.App. 292, 98 So.2d 66. The state objected to a question propounded to defendant's witness Napoleon Eggleston as to whether the deceased, Dan Madd......
  • State v. Buffalo, 8763
    • United States
    • Hawaii Court of Appeals
    • December 14, 1983
    ...1003, and 1005; 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 480 (1967); 3 C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 538 (13th ed. 1973). Smothers v. State, 39 Ala.App. 292, 98 So.2d 66 (1957); Walker v. State, supra; Commonwealth v. Strickland Transportation Corp., 30 Pa. Commw. 463, 373 A.2d 1188 Additionally,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT