Walding v. State
| Decision Date | 09 April 1929 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 498. |
| Parties | WALDING v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied May 14, 1929.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dale County; J. S. Williams, Judge.
Huey Walding was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Lee & Tompkins, of Dothan, and Chas. O. Stokes, of Ozark, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., and Sollie & Sollie, of Ozark, for the State.
Appellant with his stepfather, Ben Smith, was alleged to have been involved in a fight with Arthur Kelley and Amos Windham, in which fight both Windham and Kelley were killed.
Appellant was tried under an indictment charging the offense of murder in the first degree; the said indictment charging, in substance, that he "unlawfully, and with malice aforethought killed Arthur Kelley, by shooting him with a gun or pistol," etc. He was convicted of the offense of murder in the second degree, and given a sentence to serve imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of ten years.
Ben Smith had been put on trial some time previous to the time of the trial of appellant. Obviously the testimony on the two trials had many points of similarity. No discussion of the testimony on this trial will be indulged in here further than becomes necessary in order to illustrate what we have to say.
One Howard Kelley was examined as a witness on behalf of the state on the trial of appellant, as he had been previously so examined on the trial of Ben Smith. On this trial, after the cross-examination of this witness by appellant, the state was permitted, over timely objection, and proper exception reserved, to ask this witness, on his redirect examination several questions, of a nature of which the two following are fair samples:
'
And, "Was that question (the one just quoted) asked you, and did you make that answer?"
In all the rulings allowing the questions mentioned, there was prejudicial error.
The manifest purpose of all the testimony so elicited was to corroborate the witness, or bolster up his instant testimony by showing by him that he had given prior, not inconsistent, testimony on the same matters. This is never permissible. Jones v. State, 107 Ala. 93, 18 So. 237; Long v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Alaniz, 5350
...cannot corroborate its own witness by showing his prior consistent statements. State v. Bell, 206 Iowa 816, 221 N.W. 521; Walding v. State, 23 Ala.App. 185, 122 So. 296; Higdon v. State, 25 Ala.App. 209, 143 So. 213; Griffith v. Commonwealth, 250 Ky. 506, 63 S.W.2d 594; Byrd v. State, 154 M......
-
Henderson v. Lambert
... ... 1/2 of ... N. E. 1/4 and S. 1/2 of N.W. 1/4 of N. E. 1/4, Section 19 T ... 2 S., R. 11 W. situated in the Parish of Vernon, this state, ... made to E. D. Boone, decreed to be null and void on several ... grounds alleged in the petition. The sale was based on an ... assessment ... ...
-
Weaver v. State, 6 Div. 428.
...his own witness for the purpose of bolstering or corroborating his testimony. Green v. State, 233 Ala. 349, 171 So. 643; Walding v. State, 23 Ala.App. 185, 122 So. 296, and numerous other cases that might be cited. See Ala. Witnesses, k414(2). Counsel for appellant argues strenuously in his......
-
Smith v. State
...discussion of the merits of the several insistences in this connection. As stated, this cause must be reversed upon the authority of Walding v. State, supra, as the identical points of which necessitated a reversal of the Walding Case (Ala. App.) 122 So. 296, are presented for our considera......