Watkins v. State
| Decision Date | 25 April 1929 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 422. |
| Citation | 122 So. 610,219 Ala. 254 |
| Parties | WATKINS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Lenn alias Leon, Watkins was convicted of an offense, and appealed to the Court of Appeals. The judgment of conviction being there reversed, the State applies for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise its said judgment and decision in the case styled Watkins v. State, 122 So. 609.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., and Sollie & Sollie, of Ozark, for the State.
Lee & Tompkins, of Dothan, for appellee.
Under the rule obtaining in petitions for certiorari from the Court of Appeals to this Court, we may look to the original record for the ruling on evidence on which the reversal is rested:
The paternity of the child was a material and competent inquiry and embraced within the issues of fact being tried. 24 R. C. L. pp. 751, 752, p. 775, § 59. See, also, the rule in bastardy. 3 R. C. L. pp. 764-766; 40 A. L. R. 171, 172; 1 A. L. R. 623. The profert of the child in such criminal prosecutions is the rule in this jurisdiction. Whatley v. State, 209 Ala. 5, 96 So. 605; Teel v. State (Ala. App.) 117 So. 504; Kelly v. State, 133 Ala. 195, 32 So. 56, 91 Am. St. Rep. 25; Watts v. State, 8 Ala. App. 264, 63 So. 18; Tarver v. State, 17 Ala. App. 424, 85 So. 855.
The evidence by way of the profert was not patently illegal, irrelevant, or immaterial in a prosecution for seduction. So much of the objection made, as we have indicated, as was general, presented no question for review. Circuit Court Rule 90 [33]; Code 1928, p. 1940. The objection as made, that it was incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial, "as it was a case of seduction and not of bastardy," and that "the profert of the baby was inadmissible for any purpose," in effect limited and directed the attention of the court to the question of whether or not the profert of the baby in seduction cases was sanctioned under our law. Smith v. Bachus, 195 Ala. 8, 12, 70 So. 261; Birmingham R. L. & P. Co. v. Saxon, 179 Ala. 136, 59 So. 584; Southern Ry. Co. v. Gullatt, 158 Ala. 502, 48 So. 472.
It is an old and frequent observation that bills of exceptions where susceptible of two constructions, are construed against the exceptor, Patton v. Hayter, Johnson & Co., 15 Ala. 18; that the party appealing must affirmatively show error, Washington v. State, 106 Ala. 58, 61, 17 So. 546; and that the trial court is not required to cast about for tenable grounds of objection, Lester v. Jacobs, 212 Ala. 614, 103 So. 682; Barfield v. Evans, 187 Ala. 579, 65 So. 928. Here the objector and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yarber v. State
...denied, 376 So.2d 1117 (Ala.1979). A trial court need not cast about for tenable grounds of an objection to evidence. Watkins v. State, 219 Ala. 254, 122 So. 610 (1929). Defense counsel argued secondly that Mylar was available on the instant trial as a witness. Defense counsel contended tha......
-
Edgil v. State
...Rules of Practice in Circuit and Inferior Courts, rule 33, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix; Levison v. State, 54 Ala. 520; Watkins v. State, 219 Ala. 254, 122 So. 610; Jones v. State, 29 Ala.App. 126, 193 So. 179; Millhouse v. State, 235 Ala. 85, 177 So. 556; Hayes v. State, 33 Ala.App. 364, 33 ......
-
Wyatt v. State
...of objection waive all grounds not specified. The trial court will not be placed in error on grounds not specified. Watkins v. State, 219 Ala. 254, 122 So. 610 (1929); Knight v. State, 381 So.2d 680 The defendant argues that the motion to exclude the State's evidence should have been grante......
-
Garrison v. State
...So.2d 164, 168 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). A trial court need not cast about for tenable grounds of an objection to evidence. Watkins v. State, 219 Ala. 254, 122 So. 610 (1929)." Wyrick v. State, 409 So.2d 969, 974 AFFIRMED. All the Judges concur. ...