Watson v. State

• Decision Date: 06 February 1913
• Parties: WATSON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

61 So. 334

181 Ala. 53

WATSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 6, 1913

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; M. Frank Cahalan Judge.

William Watson was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The question to the witness Mack Sewell was after he had testified to defendant's good character: "Do you know his character for peace and quiet in that neighborhood?" Charge 2 is as follows: "If the jury believe from the evidence that William Watson had no reason to believe, and did not believe, that Arthur Jones or Walter Jones intended to take the life of John Holland, but merely intended to do him grievous bodily harm, then the defendant would not be guilty of murder in the first degree, even though the defendant knew that a difficulty might arise in which John Holland's life might be taken."

J.W Davidson and W.H. Smith, both of Birmingham, for appellant.

R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Borden Burr, of Birmingham, for the State.

SAYRE J.

Defendant was indicted jointly with several others for the murder of one John Holland. On defendant's motion there was an order of severance and he was tried separately. John Wade one of the defendants named in the indictment, and his wife testified willingly for the state. There was no error in receiving the wife's testimony. A severance having been ordered (Holley v. State, 105 Ala. 100, 17 So. 102), the wife was a competent witness against her husband's alleged accomplice so long as she was not compelled to testify to facts tending to criminate her husband. Woods v. State, 76 Ala. 35, 52 Am.Rep. 315; 6 Encyc.Ev. 880 (3). See, in this connection, Johnson v. State, 94 Ala. 53, 10 So. 427.

Several witnesses deposed that they knew defendant's general character in the neighborhood in which he lived at the time Holland was killed, and that it was good. Defendant reserved an exception because he was not allowed in addition to ask one of them "how he stood with the law-abiding people out there." Defendant's purpose was to add weight to the evidence of his good reputation. He got all he was entitled to have in the testimony of the witness as to his general character. Reputation--and that is what the witness was asked about--to be provable must be a general reputation. It is "what is generally said of the person by those among whom he dwells or with whom he is chiefly conversant." Sorrelle v. Craig, 9 Ala. 534. It is not necessary that the witness shall know all the opinion of all the neighbors of the person whose character is in issue. Hadjo v. Gooden, 13 Ala. 718. Nor is unanimity of opinion to be expected. "But, if it be not general, then, obviously, it does not exist as a fact, and evidence cannot be received to show a partial, limited, or qualified repute. The existence of a diversity of opinion is one of the means by which a witness may know there is a general reputation, but this means of knowledge, apart from the fact that there is or is not a general reputation, and as a totally independent circumstance, is not the thing to be proved." Jackson v. Jackson, 82 Md. 17, 33 A. 317, 34 L.R.A. 773, quoted in section 1612, 2 Wigm.Ev. To this effect are our cases, a number of which may be found cited in Walker v. State, 91 Ala. 80, 9 So. 87, a case directly in point. On cross-examination inquiry as to details and the extent of the witness' knowledge is allowed for testing the soundness and value of his opinion. Jackson v. State, 78 Ala. 471. On the examination in chief the inquiry ought always to be of general character.

On the rule laid down, the question asked of the witness Mack Sewell was too narrow, and error will not be affirmed of the court's action in sustaining the state's objection to it.

There was no error in the rulings in reference to the evidence offered to prove the character of deceased. In the evidence offered on behalf of the state there was...