Stover v. State
| Decision Date | 09 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 453. |
| Citation | 139 So. 573,24 Ala.App. 596 |
| Parties | STOVER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; W. W. Callahan, Judge.
Coleman Stover was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Almon & Almon, of Decatur, for appellant.
Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder. Code 1923, § 3303.
He testified as a witness in his own behalf. It was therefore competent for the state to impeach his credibility. For this purpose inquiring into his general character, or reputation was proper. And such inquiry was not restricted to his reputation for truth and veracity. Mitchell v. State, 94 Ala. 68, 10 So. 518; Byers v. State, 105 Ala. 31, 16 So. 716.
True, it is the duty of the court (to), and on proper request he must, instruct the jury that such testimony is to be considered only in passing upon the weight and credibility of his (defendant's) evidence (testimony), not as evidence of guilt of the offense charged, unless the defendant has put his good character in issue. Baugh v. State, 215 Ala. 619, 112 So. 157.
We find no error in any ruling of the trial court, in this case, with regard to the introduction of testimony tending to impeach appellant.
Appellant's written, requested, and refused, charge 8 does not state the law, and was properly refused. Ward v. State, 21 Ala. App. 551, 109 So. 897.
Appellant's written, requested, charge 12 was properly refused as it ignored the duty to retreat, and failed to hypothesize that appellant believed he was in danger. King v. State, 17 Ala. App. 536, 87 So. 701; Prince v. State, 215 Ala. 276, 110 So. 407.
While a majority of this court did give approval to a charge, similar in all respects to appellant's written, requested charge 7, in the case of Crisp v. State, 21 Ala. App. 449, 109 So. 282, yet that same majority corrected its error in so doing, in the later case of Murphy v. State, 22 Ala. App. 163, 113 So. 623. And this court is now definitely on record, in accordance with the law, in holding that such a charge is properly refused. Murphy v. State, supra, and authorities therein cited.
We find no prejudicial error anywhere, and the judgment of conviction must be, and is, affirmed.
If there are elements in the case that cause the punishment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v. State
...So. 623, and expressly overruled the Crisp case in this aspect. In subsequent cases we condemned the instruction. See, Stover v. State, 24 Ala.App. 596, 139 So. 573; Crumbley v. State, 26 Ala.App. 24, 152 So. 55; Pratt v. State, 27 Ala.App. 301, 171 So. 393. Unquestionably the charge is inv......
-
Foster v. State, 8 Div. 243
...Ala.App. 102, 112 So. 898; Harris v. State, 22 Ala.App. 121, 113 So. 318; Murphy v. State, 22 Ala.App. 163, 113 So. 623; Stover v. State, 24 Ala.App. 596, 139 So. 573; Crumbley v. State, 26 Ala.App. 24, 152 So. 55; Pratt v. State, 27 Ala.App. 301, 171 So. 393; Carroll v. State, Ala.App., 52......
-
King v. State, 1 Div. 456
...such circumstances it is error if the trial court does not so limit such evidence upon request of the defendant"); Stover v. State, 24 Ala.App. 596, 597, 139 So. 573 (1932); Mitchell v. State, 14 Ala.App. 46, 51, 70 So. 991 (1916) ("[T]he impeaching evidence, when requested by the accused, ......
-
Williams v. State
...163, 113 So. 623, and the Crisp case in this aspect was expressly overruled. Subsequently we have disapproved the charge. Stover v. State, 24 Ala.App. 596, 139 So. 573; Crumbley v. State, 26 Ala.App. 24, 152 So. 55; Pratt v. State, 27 Ala.App. 301, 171 So. Charge 47 is substantially similar......