Sorrells v. State
| Decision Date | 27 August 1968 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 635 |
| Citation | 213 So.2d 687,44 Ala.App. 481 |
| Parties | Buford G. SORRELLS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Jas. W. Kelly and John L. Knowles, Geneva, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and John A. Lockett, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder.
The defendant admitted the shooting of one Colbert R. Sorrells. The question of whether he shot in self defense was for the jury under the evidence presented. The requested general affirmative charge was refused without error.
Requested charges D--4 and D--6, solely to the effect that the burden of proof was on the state to show that defendant was not free from fault in bringing on the difficulty, were calculated to mislead the jury into believing that retreat and imminent peril were not important factors in the case, and were properly refused. Morris v. State, 146 Ala. 66, 41 So. 274.
The defendant testified as a witness in his own behalf. He did not put his character for peace and quiet in issue. After defendant had closed his evidence, the state, in rebuttal, introduced Quinn Culverhouse, Police Chief of Hartford, and L. D. Sizemore, Chief Deputy Sheriff of Geneva County, who testified they had known defendant for thirty and twenty-five years, respectively. They were asked whether they knew his general reputation in the community 'for peace an quietude' prior to the shooting. Defendant's objections to these questions were overruled. They answered that they knew such reputation. Mr. Culverhouse said it 'was not too good.' Mr. Sizemore testified it was 'bad.' The defendant's motions to exclude the answers were overruled. These rulings of the court were reversible error. The general rule of evidence is stated in Bedsole v. State, 274 Ala. 603, 150 So.2d 696, as follows:
'When a defendant in a homicide case (assault with intent to murder, etc.,) has testified, the State may inquire into his general character, but only to the extent that it affects his credibility as a witness; and unless the defendant has first put his character in issue by offering testimony that it was good, it is reversible error to allow the State to inquire into his reputation for peace and quiet.' (cases cited)
For the error pointed out hereinabove the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State, 6 Div. 689
...into his reputation for peace and quiet,' citing McElroy's Law of Evidence, Vol. I, 2nd Ed., § 27.02(8), p. 55). 1968, Sorrells v. State, 44 Ala.App. 481, 213 So.2d 687 (follows Bedsole v. State, It probably should be said also that character, good or bad, is not provable by one's opinion o......
-
Thompson v. State
...prohibits the State from proving the accused's bad general reputation respecting a particular trait of character. Sorrells v. State, 44 Ala.App. 481, 213 So.2d 687. It was therefore improper to allow him to further testify that appellant's general reputation for peace and quiet was bad sinc......
-
Headley v. State
...in issue by attempting to prove it good. Dolan v. State, supra; Bedsole v. State, 274 Ala. 603, 150 So.2d 696; and Sorrells v. State, 44 Ala.App. 481, 213 So.2d 687. The appellant had not put his own character in issue; however, in view of the fact that all of the witnesses answered in the ......
-
Randall v. State
...specific character trait into an issue, it cannot be elicited by the State." In support of the contention, he sites Sorrells v. State, 44 Ala.App. 481, 213 So.2d 687 (1968); Bedsole v. State, 274 Ala. 603, 150 So.2d 696 (1963). We read the objection of defendant as directed to State's couns......