Vinson v. State
| Decision Date | 24 May 1945 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 310. |
| Citation | 22 So.2d 344,247 Ala. 22 |
| Parties | VINSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Wm N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and John O. Harris, Asst Atty. Gen., for the petition.
F E. Throckmorton and Herbert Carmichael, both of Tuscumbia and Beddow, Ray & Jones, of Birmingham, opposed.
A reversal was declared by the Court of Appeals because of the two errors hereinafter noted and the petition here is for writ of certiorari to review that decision.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals discloses that the solicitor was permitted to cross-examine the character witnesses of the defendant as follows: 'Say he (defendant) was running a place,--we will say down here in the basement of the court house selling whiskey in violation of the law where he was selling any kind of whiskey, would you say his character was good?'
The law is correctly stated in the opinion of that court that this type of cross-examination was not permitted under our decisions. A character witness may be impeached, or his credibility tested on cross-examination, by being asked if he had not heard of specific acts of bad conduct of defendant, but he may not be interrogated as to the fact of such particular acts. Andrews v. State, 159 Ala. 14, 48 So. 858; Mullins v. State, Ala.App., 19 So.2d 845; Jones v. State, Ala.App., 19 So.2d 81.
It is argued here for the State that the defendant was not thereby prejudiced because of the replies given to the questions. We find nothing in the opinion of the Court of Appeals regarding this and under our system of review we look alone to the facts as recited in the opinion and are not authorized to inquire into the record of the evidence. Hence the argument must fail. 7 Ala.Dig., Crim.Law, k1179.
It also appears from said opinion that the fatal difficulty giving rise to the prosecution took place just outside the building in the front yard of defendant's place of business. The trial court interrupted counsel for defendant in his argument to the jury as follows (quoting from the opinion): 'Counsel for the defendant, in his argument to the jury, stated: By the Court: 'He would have had to retreat if he wasn't in his own home or within the curtilage of his home.''
Under the facts as disclosed by the opinion of the Court of Appeals this argument of counsel was proper and we must here affirm the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chastain v. State, 7 Div. 113
...504, 19 So.2d 81; Mullins v. State, 31 Ala.App. 571, 19 So.2d 845; Vinson v. State, 32 Ala.App. 74, 22 So.2d 341, certiorari denied 247 Ala. 22, 22 So.2d 344; Williams v. State, 144 Ala. 14, 40 So. The same question was propounded, without objection or exception, to other of defendant's cha......
-
Lowery v. State
...409, 108 So. 658; Bedingfield v. State, 24 Ala.App. 398, 135 So. 656; Morris v. State, 25 Ala.App. 175, 142 So. 685; Vinson v. State, 247 Ala. 22, 22 So.2d 344; Williams v. State, 250 Ala. 549, 35 So.2d We cannot say that the negative answer by the witness Cooper cured the error here shown.......
-
Singley v. State, 2 Div. 287
...acts on direct examination. Helms v. State, 254 Ala. 14, 47 So.2d 276; Andrews v. State, 159 Ala. 14, 48 So. 858; Vinson v. State, 247 Ala. 22, 22 So.2d 344; Snead v. State, 243 Ala. 23, 8 So.2d 269. However, the action of the trial court in refusing to permit the defendant to introduce neg......
-
Baldwin v. State
...170 Ala. 16, 54 So. 116; Hill v. State, 194 Ala. 11, 69 So. 941, 2 A.L.R. 509; Hill v. State, 210 Ala. 221, 97 So. 639; Vinson v. State, 247 Ala. 22, 22 So.2d 344; Wright v. State, 247 Ala. 180, 23 So.2d 519. In any event, the question was harmless in view of the negative answer. Hamlett v.......