Thomas v. State

Decision Date01 February 1894
Citation100 Ala. 53,14 So. 621
PartiesTHOMAS v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Barbour county; J. M. Carmichael, Judge.

Bill Thomas was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.

On the trial of the cause the state introduced evidence tending to show that the defendant feloniously took and carried out of and away from, the storehouse of Godwin & Duskin, a mercantile firm, a piece of bulk meat; that after the alleged larceny the defendant left his home in Barbour county, and went to Florida, but was arrested, two years afterwards, in Barbour county. The defendant introduced himself as a witness, and testified that he did not steal the meat from the storehouse of Godwin & Duskin. After he had so testified and had come down from the stand, and the state had introduced other witnesses, the state asked to have the defendant put back on the stand to testify, and to being so re-examined as a witness the defendant objected. The court overruled the defendant's objection, and required him to go back on the stand as a witness, and to this action of the court the defendant duly excepted. After having taken the stand as a witness again, the state asked the defendant "if he (the defendant) did not tell Mr. Miller, the deputy sheriff, after he was arrested by him, that he (the defendant) had been working in an oyster factory at Appalachicola, Florida, off and on, for two years?" The defendant objected to this question and the answer thereto because the evidence sought to be elicited thereby was illegal and irrelevant. The court overruled the said objection, and the defendant excepted. The defendant answered that he did not tell Mr. Miller as he was asked. The state then introduced the said Miller, the deputy sheriff, as a witness, and asked him "if defendant did not tell him after he had arrested defendant, that he (defendant) had been working in an oyster factory at Appalachicola, Florida, off and on, for two years." The witness answered that the defendant did tell him that he had been working in an oyster factory at Appalachicola, Fla., off and on, for two years. The defendant objected to this evidence, and moved to exclude it from the jury because it was illegal and irrelevant, and duly excepted to the court's overruling his motion.

G. L. Comer, for appellant.

Wm. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HEAD J.

When a defendant on trial for a criminal offense introduces...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Palmer v. State, 5 Div. 262
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 18, 1975
    ...establish the fact. It cannot be proven by parol evidence in the first instance. Thompson v. State, 100 Ala. 70, 14 So. 878; Thomas v. State, 100 Ala. 53, 14 So. 621.' Thus, it is clear here that allowing the circuit clerk to read the purported trial docket sheet as proof of the appellant's......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1946
    ...he has done so, he then may be cross-examined and compelled to do what would be material and competent of any other witness. Thomas v. State, 100 Ala. 53, 14 So. 621; v. State, 137 Ala. 22, 34 So. 396. In the case of Sims v. State, 23 Ala.App. 387, 126 So. 498, 499, the defendant, over obje......
  • Sargent v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 25, 1986
    ...establish the fact. It cannot be proven by parol evidence in the first instance. Thompson v. State, 100 Ala. 70, 14 So. 878; Thomas v. State, 100 Ala. 53, 14 So. 621.' "Thus, it is clear here that allowing the circuit clerk to read the purported trial docket sheet as proof of the appellant'......
  • Hammond v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1906
    ... ... purpose of laying a predicate for their impeachment by proof ... of contradictory statements; and by calling them the state ... did not, as is insisted by the appellant, make them its ... witnesses. Jones' Case, 115 Ala. 67, 22 So. 566; ... Dudley's Case, 121 Ala. 4, 25 So. 742; Thomas' Case, ... 100 Ala. 53, 14 So. 621; Thompson's Case, 100 Ala. 70, 14 ... So. 878; Braham's Case, (Ala.) 38 So. 919 ... If a ... witness answers a question, and the answer is responsive, the ... party answering the question has no right to have the answer ... excluded. To acknowledge ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT