Sweatt v. State

• Decision Date: 30 June 1908
• Citation: 47 So. 194,156 Ala. 85
• Parties: SWEATT v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

47 So. 194

156 Ala. 85

SWEATT v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1908

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

Jack Sweatt was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court, as are the objections and exceptions to the evidence. The following charges were refused to the defendant: "(A) The court charges the jury that the bad character of the defendant for being rowdy and drinking cannot be looked to by the jury as detracting from his credibility as a witness. (B) The court charges the jury that the defendant committed no crime by merely carrying the pistol in his hand along the road, or to the field, or to the Dean premises. (C) If the pistol was fired either accidentally by the defendant, or by Dean hitting it with a hoe, then there can be no conviction of defendant; and if there is a reasonable doubt whether it was fired in either of these ways you must find the defendant not guilty."

Street & Isbell, for appellant.

Alex. M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARALSON J.

The defendant was convicted of an assault with the intent to murder Henry Dean.

The evidence was in conflict as to who provoked or brought on the difficulty. That for the state tended to show that defendant deliberately provoked the difficulty, and fired a pistol at Dean with the intention of murdering him. Defendant's evidence tended to show that Dean, without provocation assaulted him with a hoe, and that the pistol was fired either by Dean hitting it with a hoe, or involuntarily, by defendant, in attempting to ward off Dean's blow.

After the state had introduced its evidence, the defendant was examined as a witness in his own behalf. No question as to the character of defendant was introduced by the state. After defendant closed his evidence, the state, in rebuttal introduced one Gibson. He testified that he knew the defendant, and was asked by the state whether his general character was good or bad. No objection was interposed to the question. He replied that "his general character was bad for being rough and rowdy and drinking." To this last-quoted statement defendant objected, and moved to exclude it, because illegal, irrelevant, and immaterial, and his character for peace and quiet had not been put in issue," which objection was overruled. The object of the question was to impeach the credibility of the witness. His character for peace and quiet had not been put in issue.

It was permissible to introduce evidence of the general character of the defendant, and this, as stated, was not objected to; but as stated in Dolan v. State, 81 Ala. 12, 19, 11 So 707, "only so much of his moral character as reflected on his credibility as a witness was open to assault by the state in the first instance. Clarke v. State, 78 Ala. 474, 56 Am. Rep. 45. A character for violence or turbulence sheds no light on the credibility of a witness and such testimony was...