White v. State

• Decision Date: 17 April 1889
• Citation: White v. State, 87 Ala. 24, 5 So. 829 (Ala. 1889)
• Parties: WHITE v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

5 So. 829

87 Ala. 24

WHITE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 17, 1889

Appeal from city court of Mobile; O. J. SEMMES, Judge.

The indictment in this case contained two counts,-one charging the defendant with burglary, and the other larceny from a dwelling-house; the house broken into and entered, and the goods stolen therefrom, being alleged to be the property of Emma Harris.On the trial, as the bill of exceptions shows the state introduced said Emma Harris as a witness, and she testified to the burglary and larceny from her house stating, also, that she found some of the stolen articles, a few days afterwards, in the defendant's house, and the others in the possession of one Gertrude Lloyd.Said witness was asked, on cross-examination, "if she did not go to the house of Gertrude Lloyd, a few days before the meeting of the grand jury, and try to induce her to false-witness against the defendant," which question was answered in the negative.The defendant afterwards introduced said Gertrude Lloyd as a witness, and asked her "whether Emma Harris had not gone to her house, a few days before the meeting of the grand jury, and said something about getting her to false-witness against the defendant," and this witness also answered in the negative.The defendant's attorney then asked the witness: "Did you not tell me here in this court-room, a few minutes before the trial, that Emma did come to your house, a few days before the meeting of the grand jury, and say something to you about getting you to false-witness against the defendant?"The solicitor objected to this question, on the ground that a party cannot impeach his own witness.The defendant's attorney then stated that "he expected the witness to answer in the affirmative."The court sustained the objection to the questions asked, and the defendant thereupon excepted.The state introduced as a witness Catherine White, who was the mother of the defendant, and who testified that the defendant brought home the articles alleged to have been stolen the morning after the burglary.The witness was then turned over to the defendant, and her attorney asked the court"whether he had the right to examine the witness then as his own, or must wait until the state had rested its case."The court said, "You may do either;" and the defendant's attorney answered, "Then I shall do so now."The testimony of this witness, on examination by the defendant's counsel, was, among other things, "that Emma Harris is a woman of bad reputation and witness would not believe here on oath."The defendant's attorney, in his argument before the jury comparing the relative weight to be attributed to the testimony of Emma Harris and Catherine White, said "that the defendant had impeached Emma Harris, but the state had not even sought to impeach Catherine White."The solicitor replied, in his argument to the jury, "that, as matter of law, he could not impeach her, as she was his own witness."The defendant's attorney objected, under the circumstances, to this proposition being stated as a rule of law; on the ground that said Catherine White, being a witness for the defendant as well as for the state, could be impeached.The court overruled the objection, and allowed the proposition to be stated, and the defendant...