Weems v. State
| Citation | 222 Ala. 346,132 So. 711 |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1930 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 754. |
| Parties | WEEMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 1931.
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Marvin Weems was convicted of murder in the second degree and appealed to the Court of Appeals. The judgment of conviction being there reversed (6th Div. 732, 132 So. 709), the State by and through its Attorney General, now applies for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in said case.
Writ awarded; reversed and remanded.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., and Merwin T. Koonce, Asst. Atty Gen., and Chas. R. Wiggins and L. D. Gray, both of Jasper for the petition.
J. B. Powell, of Jasper, opposed.
Defendant's witness Springfield was present at the time of the difficulty and had ridden with defendant to the place where it occurred, and testified as to its details. It was therefore proper to inquire of him as to his condition of intoxication on that occasion; and as tending to show his condition in that respect, it was proper to ask him if he and defendant had been drinking together all that day, and if he did not take a drink in the barber shop just before he left. Alabama Power Co. v. Kendrick, 219 Ala. 692, 123 So. 215. An affirmative answer would therefore be material. And a negative answer would be without prejudice. There is no occasion for defendant to complain if a question is answered favorably to him.
The court overruled defendant's objection to the question propounded by the state's counsel to him on cross-examination, asking if he did not go into Winn's store and buy some cartridges for this pistol. The testimony given on such cross-examination to the effect that he had cartridges when he went to the store and might have bought some, but could not say, and did not come out of the store loading his pistol, and did not load it after he came out of the store, but had the pistol when he went to the store, was not offensive to the rule which allows a thorough sifting cross-examination. Code, § 7731. We do not think that there was reversible error in overruling the objection to the question under such circumstances.
After defendant had testified that he was beaten by deceased on the head and had shown scars on his face and behind his ear, the court overruled objection to the question to him by the state, if they were not "put there by numerous fights you have had down there in that community." Our judgment is that there was no error in this respect whether the answer was in the affirmative or negative, and not if there was no answer. If he had answered in the affirmative, we see no reason why it would not have been admissible on the effect of the scars as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barbour v. State
...of detailed oral testimony does not affect their admissibility. Stallings v. State, 249 Ala. 1, 4, 5, 32 So.2d 233; Weems v. State, 222 Ala. 346, 347, 132 So. 711; McKee v. State, 33 Ala.App. 171, 31 So.2d 656, certiorari denied 249 Ala. 433, 31 So.2d In Wilson v. State, 31 Ala.App. 21, 11 ......
-
Edgil v. State
...and uncontradicted testimony cannot be cause for reversal. This is true even if the evidence is cumulative in nature. Weems v. State, 222 Ala. 346, 132 So 711; Stallings v. State, 249 Ala. 1, 32 So.2d 233; Enzor v. State, 27 Ala.App. 60, 167 So. 336; Bohannon v. State, 24 Ala.App. 364, 135 ......
-
Reedy v. State
... ... Though ... such evidence be only cumulative and may tend to inflame the ... jury, its admissibility will not be affected if it sheds ... light upon a material inquiry or illustrates the transaction ... at issue. Floyd v. State, 245 Ala. 646, 18 So.2d ... 392; Weems v. State, 222 Ala. 346, 347, 132 So. 711, ... 713; Wilson v. State, Ala.App., 11 So.2d 563, 566 ... The other wearing apparel of the victim was therefore also ... properly admitted under this rule of evidence ... [246 ... Ala. 369] So also, and for like reason, were the photographs ... ...
-
Wise v. State
... ... was not objectionable as it did not disclose any other ... feature of her body, and not in any respect gruesome. They ... were all admitted without error. Boyette v. State, ... 215 Ala. 472, 110 So. 812; Grissett v. State, 241 ... Ala. 343, 2 So.2d 399; Weems v. State, 222 Ala. 346, ... 132 So. 711; Stallings v. State, 249 Ala. 1, 32 ... So.2d 233; McKee v. State, 33 Ala.App. 171, 31 So.2d ... The ... chief defense was that of insanity. The evidence on that ... issue was given ... [38 So.2d 555] ... mainly by non-expert witnesses. In ... ...