White v. State
Citation | 40 Ala.App. 613,119 So.2d 344 |
Decision Date | 05 April 1960 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 726 |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Parties | Alexander WHITE v. STATE. |
Cooper, Mitch, Black & Crawford, Birmingham, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment, in three counts, charged the violation of Section 123, Title 14, Code 1940. The trial resulted in defendant's conviction and he appeals.
According to state's witnesses Hulon Bibby, Gilbert W. Anderson, Jr., and Hershell Garrard, the defendant at about 9:15 on the night of November 17, 1958, threw an explosive from an automobile driven by one John Richardson. The resulting explosion caused a hole in the ground about 8 inches deep and twelve inches in diameter, some ten feet from Hulon Bibby's home, which was occupied at the time by Bibby and his family.
The testimony discloses that a labor dispute was in progress at the Perfection Mattress Company. Bibby, Anderson and Garrard, employees of the company, were working during the strike. Alexander white and John Richardson were striking employees.
The defendant testified as a witness in his own behalf. On his cross-examination he was asked:
Defense counsel objected. The court asked whether the purpose of the question was to show bias or prejudice. The solicitor answered that it was. The Court first overruled the objection, then reconsidered its ruling and sustained the objection. The solicitor then announced:
'On the theory of motive, Judge, is what I was pursuing it on.'
The question was rephrased, as follows:
Objection was again interposed, and the court said:
'I sustain, Mr. Watson, in that form.'
The following questions, to which no further objection was made, and the answers thereto, appear in the record:
'
'
When the defense had rested its case, Gilbert W. Anderson was recalled as a witness for the state. He reiterated his previous testimony that he had seen the defendant on occasions prior to the night of November 17, while witness was working at the Perfection Mattress Company and defendant was a picket there. This question was asked:
Objection was interposed on the general grounds, and on the further grounds that it was an attempt to prove an offense not charged in the indictment. The court overruled the objection. Defense counsel then stated: 'The question of course, is leading and suggestive.' The solicitor remarked: 'It would have to be in the language of the predicate.' The witness answered: Further interrogation of the witness, and his answers thereto, was as follows:
The court was not requested to instruct the jury as to the purpose for which such evidence was allowed. The record does not disclose the theory on which it was admitted. Our conclusion is, from the solicitor's statements, that it was admitted on the question of motive, or as affecting the credibility of defendant.
The point in issue was whether the defendant had committed the crime charged in the indictment. Evidence of the commission by an accused of other independent crimes must be Garner v. State, 269 Ala. 531, 114 So.2d 385, 386.
There are well established exceptions to the general rule which excludes evidence of crimes other than that charged in the indictment. One exception is that such evidence will be received when it is relevant to show motive for the crime for which accused is on trial. McMurtrey v. State, 37 Ala.App. 656, 74 So.2d 528, and numerous cases there cited. Mason v. State, supra; Garner v. State, supra.
Spicer v. State, 188 Ala. 9, 65 So. 972, 977.
We are clearly of opinion the evidence concerning the rock throwing incident on a prior occasion was not admissible. It had no legitimate tendency to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCord v. State
...rules and principles of human conduct." Spicer v. State, 188 Ala. 9, 65 So. 972, 977 (Ala.1914) (emphasis added); White v. State, 40 Ala.App. 613, 119 So.2d 344 (1960). We do not hold, as a matter of law, that there was no connection between the defendant's losses in the grain futures marke......
-
Sargent v. State
...of it. We feel the trial court committed reversible error in allowing this into evidence. "The general rule was stated in White v. State, 40 Ala.App. 613, 119 So.2d 344, as follows: 'For the purpose of attacking his credibility, a witness, or a defendant when testifying in his own behalf, m......
-
McGovern v. State
...of the defendant. Tit. 7, Sec. 434, Code of Alabama, 1940. See also Love v. State, 36 Ala.App. 693, 63 So.2d 285; White v. State, 40 Ala.App. 613, 119 So.2d 344; McCreary v. State, 42 Ala.App. 410, 166 So.2d 914; and Lanier v. State, 43 Ala.App. 38, 179 So.2d 167. The State contends that th......
-
Jones v. State, 6 Div. 689
...'Alabama: 1959, Garner v. State, 269 Ala. 531, 114 So.2d 385 (murder; prior criminal act, held inadmissible). 1960, White v. State, 40 Ala.App. 613, 119 So.2d 344 (setting off dynamite near dwelling; cross-examination of defendant as to a rock-throwing incident on a former occasion held ina......