Spicer v. State

• Decision Date: 19 December 1894
• Citation: 16 So. 706,105 Ala. 123
• Parties: SPICER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

16 So. 706

105 Ala. 123

SPICER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 19, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Baldwin county; James T. Jones, Judge.

John Spicer was convicted of assault and battery, and appeals. Reversed.

Polly Ann Spicer, being introduced as a witness for the state testified that she was the wife of the defendant, and that within 12 months before the finding of the indictment in this case, the defendant committed an assault and battery upon her and her baby, Aurelia Spicer, leaving wounds and bruises upon the body of both of them. Two other witnesses in this case were introduced, whose testimony was that they saw bruises upon the persons of Polly Ann Spicer and her baby, Aurelia Spicer, within a few days after the assault and battery were said to have been committed. John Williams, a half-brother of Polly Ann Spicer, testified that Polly Ann Spicer's reputation in the community in which she lived was bad, and that her general reputation for truth and veracity was bad. This witness, on cross-examination, was asked the following question: "If the bad character of the witness Polly Ann Spicer was not that she was unchaste?" The witness answered "that, while she had the reputation of being an unchaste woman, her bad reputation was not confined to her want of chastity." The testimony of William Bass and Joe Gentry, witnesses for the defendant, was the same as that of John Williams. Each of these witnesses also testified that the defendant bore a good character in the neighborhood in which he lived, and his general reputation was that of a peaceable and quiet man. The defendant's good reputation was also proven by another witness. The defendant, on being examined as a witness, testified that he did not commit the alleged assault. He further testified that he was not living with his said wife, and they had been separated some two years. In answer to questions by the court, the defendant said that "he had lived with his wife some six or eight years, and that, when he married her, she had a good reputation." The court, in its general charge, among other things, instructed the jury as follows: (1) "That in order to impeach the character of a witness, it was not proper to single out the fact that she was unchaste." (2) "The witness John Williams, the half-brother of Polly Ann Spicer, instead of defending and assisting his half-sister, comes here to blacken her character, and that fact may be looked to by you for the purpose of saying how much weight you will give to his testimony." (3) "The defendant testified that he lived with Polly Ann Spicer, his wife, for six or eight years; that, when he married her, her character was good. He now comes before you and tells you her character is bad; and the court charges you that, as the defendant has put his own character in issue his statement that his wife's character was good when he married her, and is bad now, may be looked to by the jury to impeach his own character; and you are to say from such evidence what sort of a character he has." The defendant separately excepted to each of these portions of the court's general charge, and also separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of the following charges, requested by him: (1) "The court charges the jury that, while the character of a witness for chastity cannot be singled out to impeach her credibility, still the fact that the witness is a person of unchaste character is one of the constituents that make up her general character." (2) "The court charges the jury that if they believe from the evidence that the general character of Polly Ann Spicer for truth and veracity is bad, they may disregard her testimony." (3) "The court charges the jury that they should not convict the defendant on the uncorroborated testimony of the witness Polly Ann Spicer, if they believe that the evidence shows her to be unworthy of...