Thompson v. State, 5 Div. 519
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | CATES |
| Citation | 105 So.2d 146,39 Ala.App. 569 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 519 |
| Decision Date | 19 August 1958 |
| Parties | James THOMPSON v. STATE. |
Page 146
v.
STATE.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1958.
[39 Ala.App. 570] Wilbanks & Wilbanks, Alexander City, for appellant.
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Geo. Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State.
CATES, Judge.
Thompson was indicted for murder in the first degree for killing Jack Strong with a shotgun. The jury found him guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and fixed his punishment at eight years' imprisonment in the penitentiary.
Thompson had been at the home of deceased at one time during the evening of the killing, was stabbed by one Brad Henry, and had returned for revenge. Thompson kicked open Strong's door, and after being told Henry had gone, he shot Strong.
On cross-examination, Strong's wife stated that in her opinion the shooting was accidental. The prosecutor claimed surprise and then cross-examined his witness on that ground, attempting to show that she testified as she did in order to collect certain insurance carried on her husband's life. The witness denied that.
Page 147
On cross-examination by the defendant, it was shown that she had informed the prosecutor on two previous occasions that her testimony would be as it developed, i. e., that the shooting was accidental. The trial judge then stopped the questioning, saying that the State could not cross-examine its own witness on the ground of surprise after it had been shown that there was no genuine surprise. He added that he had allowed such cross-examination previously because it had come in without objection.
During Strong's wife's testimony, the State introduced in evidence a photograph (Exhibit No. 3) which showed the [39 Ala.App. 571] dead body as it lay in the room where the shooting took place. She identified the picture as truly representing Strong 'as he lay, as he fell when he was shot.' Pointing to a black and white object next to Strong's body, the solicitor asked:
'Q. Do you recognize that teddy bear? Whose teddy bear is that?
'Mr. Wilbanks: We object to that. It's prejudicial.
'The Court: It's just pointed out. Overruled.
'Mr. Wilbanks: Reserve an exception.
'A. It's my little baby's.
'Q. You say that's your little baby's teddy bear?
'A. Yes, sir.'
While the ownership of the toy would ordinarily be immaterial, nevertheless, since the testimony established without contradiction that Strong's two little children were in the house at the time of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. State, 2 Div. 137
...a photograph is not inadmissible merely because it can inflame. Wilson v. State, 31 Ala.App. 21, 11 So.2d 563; Thompson v. State, 39 Ala.App. 569, 105 So.2d 146; May v. State, 42 Ala.App. 401, 166 So.2d 860; Grissett v. State, 241 Ala. 343, 2 So.2d 399; Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145, 176 So......
-
Houston v. State, 6 Div. 175
...others, unequivocally assert that a character witness's personal definition of 'good reputation' is immaterial. See Thompson v. State, 39 Ala.App. 569, 105 So.2d 146, and Wright v. State, 32 Ala.App. 169, 23 So.2d 517, cert. denied247 Ala. 180, 23 So.2d 519, for other examples of this type ......
-
Packer v. State, 1 Div. 511
...we do not assume, the ruling overruling the objection was harmless. Embrey v. State, 283 Ala. 110, 214 So.2d 567; Thompson v. State, 39 Ala.App. 569, 105 So.2d The indictment charged the appellant with the larceny of three dresses which belonged to Mrs. Hall. Those dresses were found in the......
-
Hooper v. State, 3 Div. 473
...others, unequivocally assert that a character witness's personal definition of 'good reputation' is immaterial. See Thompson v. State, 39 Ala.App. 569, 105 So.2d 146 (1958) and Wright v. State, 32 Ala.App. 169, 23 So.2d 517, cert. denied, 247 Ala. 180, 23 So.2d 519 (1945), for other example......
-
Mitchell v. State, 2 Div. 137
...a photograph is not inadmissible merely because it can inflame. Wilson v. State, 31 Ala.App. 21, 11 So.2d 563; Thompson v. State, 39 Ala.App. 569, 105 So.2d 146; May v. State, 42 Ala.App. 401, 166 So.2d 860; Grissett v. State, 241 Ala. 343, 2 So.2d 399; Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145, 176 So......
-
Houston v. State, 6 Div. 175
...others, unequivocally assert that a character witness's personal definition of 'good reputation' is immaterial. See Thompson v. State, 39 Ala.App. 569, 105 So.2d 146, and Wright v. State, 32 Ala.App. 169, 23 So.2d 517, cert. denied247 Ala. 180, 23 So.2d 519, for other examples of this type ......
-
Packer v. State, 1 Div. 511
...we do not assume, the ruling overruling the objection was harmless. Embrey v. State, 283 Ala. 110, 214 So.2d 567; Thompson v. State, 39 Ala.App. 569, 105 So.2d The indictment charged the appellant with the larceny of three dresses which belonged to Mrs. Hall. Those dresses were found in the......
-
Hooper v. State, 3 Div. 473
...others, unequivocally assert that a character witness's personal definition of 'good reputation' is immaterial. See Thompson v. State, 39 Ala.App. 569, 105 So.2d 146 (1958) and Wright v. State, 32 Ala.App. 169, 23 So.2d 517, cert. denied, 247 Ala. 180, 23 So.2d 519 (1945), for other example......