Thompson v. State

• Decision Date: 13 February 1894
• Citation: 14 So. 878,100 Ala. 70
• Parties: THOMPSON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

14 So. 878

100 Ala. 70

THOMPSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 13, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Pike county; John R. Tyson, Judge.

Amos Thompson was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.

The state introduced evidence tending to connect the defendant with the crime for which he was indicted, while the defendant's evidence was in conflict with this testimony for the state. After proving by one Starke, that he was a justice of the peace in 1887, and entered the judgment entry in his docket, which showed that Ran Hartsfield and Amos Thompson were convicted of petit larceny in 1887, the state offered to introduce the said docket. The defendant objected and the state tried to identify the defendant by said Starke as the person named in the judgment entry, but failed to do so. The solicitor then called the defendant as a witness against his objection, and asked him if he was the person named in the judgment entry. To which he answered that he did not know. He was then asked by the solicitor "if he was not tried with Ran Hartsfield in Judge Starke's court for stealing meat?" To which he answered, "that he remembered having been arrested and brought before Judge Starke once, and he thought Ran Hartsfield was tried for something at the same time, or on the same day, but that his recollection was that he, the defendant, was not convicted and that he was never tried by Judge Starke but once in his life." The defendant objected to each of the above questions separately when asked-First, because the state had no authority to call the defendant as a witness, to testify against his objection, after he had been cross-examined, and had retired from the witness stand; second, because it was requiring the defendant to furnish evidence against himself; third, because the evidence sought was illegal.

R. L. Harmon, for appellant.

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

HARALSON J.

1. It is well settled, that character, whether good or bad, can only be proved by general reputation, and evidence of particular acts or conduct is inadmissible, both on the direct and cross-examination, though in the latter, a greater latitude is allowed than in the former, and a witness may sometimes be asked irrelevant questions to test his accuracy, veracity or credibility. Moulton v. State, 88 Ala. 116, 6 So. 758; Morgan v. State, 88 Ala. 223, 6 So. 761; Moore v. State, 68 Ala. 360.

2. Nall, a witness for the defendant, testified as to the general character of defendant,-that he knew it, and it was mixed; that some people said it was good, and some that it was bad. On cross-examination by the solicitor, the witness was asked if he had ever heard of the defendant stealing meat from the store of Ross & Henderson, to which question the defendant objected. It was a proper question. It did not call for an independent fact, but for what the witness had heard, having a direct bearing on the value of the testimony of the witness touching reputation, and not as proof of conduct. Ingram v. State, 67 Ala. 67; Baker v. Trotter, 73 Ala. 281; Jackson v. State, 78 Ala. 471; Lowery v. State (Ala.) 13 So. 498.

3. On the cross-examination of the defendant as a witness, the solicitor was allowed to ask him, if he had not been convicted of petit larceny by a...