Storey v. State
| Decision Date | 06 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 398 |
| Citation | 72 So. 267,14 Ala.App. 127 |
| Parties | STOREY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.
Otis Storey was indicted and convicted of the offense of perjury and he appeals. Affirmed.
The state charged that on his examination as a witness, duly sworn to testify on the trial of one Sterling Taylor in the circuit court of Houston county, Ala., under indictment for seducing Esther Campbell, an unmarried woman, which said court had authority to administer said oath, he falsely swore that at a party early in March, 1913, at John Grizzle's he, the said Otis Storey, had sexual intercourse with said Esther Campbell, the matters so sworn being material, and the said testimony of said Storey being willfully and corruptly false. While the state was examining Esther Campbell as a witness, the defense offered to show by her that she was the mother of a bastard child, but the court sustained the state's objection thereto. Other than the affirmative charge, the defendant was refused the following charge:
If any witness testifying in this case has sworn falsely as to any material matter, then the jury would be authorized to discard the testimony of such witness entirely.
E.S Thigpen, of Dothan, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and Harwell G. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
It is well settled that a witness cannot be impeached by proof of a specific actual delinquency not connected with the facts in issue, unless it constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude of which the witness has been convicted, or bears such relation to the transaction under investigation as to show bias or prejudice on the part of the witness. Nelson v. State, 11 Ala.App. 221, 65 So. 844. The objection to the question asked the witness Esther Campbell, eliciting the fact as to whether or not she was the mother of a bastard child at the time the alleged perjured testimony was given by defendant, was properly sustained.
The witness Newton swore that he could not say that one of the persons he saw at the well was Esther Campbell. Granting this as true, it was clearly immaterial who the person was. The witness Linnie Bell Gibson testified that she saw the defendant and Esther Campbell in a compromising position in the yard near the well, and called her sister and the witness Blanche Newton to go and see the defendant and Esther while in this position, but they would not go. The statement of the witness to the effect that she called her sister and Miss Newton to go see those parties was not disputed, and it was not permissible for the purpose of bolstering up her testimony to prove this collateral fact by the witness Newton, and the court properly sustained the objection of the solicitor to the question to Miss Newton, eliciting the fact that Miss Gibson called to her and that she refused to go. Newsom v. State, 107 Ala. 137, 18 So. 206.
Although the record shows that objections were sustained to the several questions eliciting testimony from defendant as to the circumstances under which he made the statement to Roland that he, defendant, had never had sexual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bahakel v. Great Southern Trucking Co.
... ... that the testimony so given was willfully false, and that it ... relates to material matters. Grigsby v. State, 19 ... Ala.App. 661, 100 So. 82; Montgomery v. State, 17 ... Ala.App. 469, 86 So. 132; Pinkerton v. State, 246 ... Ala. 540, 22 So.2d 113; Storey ... ...
- Burt v. State
-
Young v. State, 8 Div. 688.
...all the evidence, and we are not authorized to review the refusal of the affirmative charge, duly requested by appellant. Storey v. State, 14 Ala. App. 127, 72 So. 267, authorities therein cited. For this same reason we cannot affirm that it was error to overrule appellant's motion to set a......