Swint v. State

• Decision Date: 13 February 1908
• Citation: 45 So. 901,154 Ala. 46
• Parties: SWINT v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

45 So. 901

154 Ala. 46

SWINT v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 13, 1908

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Lee County; Albert E. Barnett Judge.

Will Swint was convicted of assault with intent to ravish a female, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The following charges were requested by, and refused to, the defendant: "(1) The character of the woman alleged to have been assaulted with regard to chastity may be proven and the jury may weigh such evidence, together with all the evidence in the case, in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. (2) The fact, if it be a fact, that the woman alleged to have been assaulted, having never been a married woman, had been in a pregnant condition previous to the alleged assault, may be considered by the jury, together with all the other evidence in the case, in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. (3) The jury can look to the bad character of Lueva Hill, if they so believe from the evidence, to determine, in connection with all the other evidence in the case, whether the defendant forcibly assaulted her. (4) The character of the woman alleged to have been assaulted may be proven, and the jury may weigh such evidence, together with all the evidence in the case, in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant."

R. B Barnes, for appellant.

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

HARALSON J.

The defendant asked his witness, McCurdy, "Do you know the general character of Lueva Hill for chastity in the community in which she lives?" The court sustained an objection to the question and would not allow it answered.

Said Lueva had been examined and gave evidence which, if believed, would tend to convict the defendant. The evident object of the evidence, if allowed, was to impeach the credibility of this witness.

In Rhea v. State, 100 Ala. 122, 14 So. 853, it was said: "Under our rule, bad general character as a generic proposition, may be given in evidence to impeach a witness. It is not confined to character for truth and veracity [[citing cases]." But the fact that a woman is a prostitute, while it is one of the constituents that make up her general character, cannot be singled out and made a special ground for impeaching her character for veracity. B. U. R. Co. v. Hale, 90 Ala. 8, 8 So. 142, 24 Am St. Rep. 748; McInerny v. Irvin, 90 Ala. 275, 7 So. 841. In the latter case, it was held that in impeaching the...