Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 16 December 1919 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 591 |
| Citation | 84 So. 424,17 Ala.App. 285 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; F. Loyd Tate, Judge.
Grover Williams was indicted for murder in the second degree in that he ran over and killed a child while recklessly driving an auto at a rapid rate of speed on a populous thoroughfare in Birmingham. He was convicted of manslaughter, and he appealed.
Affirmed.
The facts sufficiently appear. A.L. Aldrich was introduced by the state as a witness, and, after having testified, he was asked by the state if he had not made a statement on August 22 in the presence of certain persons, and replied, "Yes sir." The state then asked, "To refresh your recollection, did you not then say that in your judgment the automobile was running 60 or 65 miles an hour when it hit the child?" After some quibbling, the witness was permitted to answer, "Yes, sir." He was asked further to refresh his recollection whether or not Williams made any statement about cutting the lights off himself as a smart trick and bragging about it or anything of that kind. The court permitted this question to be asked and answered, and later on the witness stated that Williams said it was a good thing that he cut the lights out so that they could not get the number of his car.
The other exceptions sufficiently appear.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The only exceptions reserved are to the rulings of the court on the admissibility of evidence, and no brief has come to the hands of the court.
It has many times been held by this court that a witness may be asked leading questions, by the party offering him, as to statements made, different from his testimony then being given, not for the purpose of impeachment, but in order to refresh the recollection of the witness, and the court did not err in following this rule during the examination of the state's witness Aldrich.
The court committed error in permitting the witness Aldrich to testify, over the objection of defendant, that after the killing of the child defendant made a statement about cutting the lights off on his car and referred to it as a "smart trick" and "bragged about it." The answer was a conclusion of the witness as to the meaning of a statement made by the defendant. The statement itself was the best evidence of what the defendant said, from which the jury might draw the conclusions. But...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...21 Ala.App. 633, 111 So. 191; Graham v. State, 27 Ala.App. 505, 176 So. 382; Rainey v. State, 245 Ala. 458, 17 So.2d 687; Williams v. State, 17 Ala.App. 285, 84 So. 424. facts set out will serve to demonstrate that we are not authorized to disturb the action of the court below in denying th......
-
Harris v. State
...Reynolds v. State, supra; Rainey v. State, supra; Jones v. State, supra; Hammell v. State, 21 Ala.App. 633, 111 So. 191; Williams v. State, 17 Ala.App. 285, 84 So. 424. Neither are we convinced that we should disturb the ruling of the trial judge in his action in denying the motion for a ne......
-
Gills v. State
...21 Ala.App. 633, 111 So. 191; Graham v. State, 27 Ala.App. 505, 176 So. 382; Rainey v. State, 245 Ala. 458, 17 So.2d 687; Williams v. State, 17 Ala.App. 285, 84 So. 424. The evidence which we have hereinabove delineated will serve to illustrate our view that we are not authorized under the ......
-
Clayton v. State, 7 Div. 120
...505, 176 So. 382; Johnson v. State, 34 Ala.App. 623, 43 So.2d 424; Hammell v. State, 21 Ala.App. 633, 111 So. 191; Williams v. State, 17 Ala.App. 285, 84 So. 424. As counsel points out in brief the case of Bagwell v. State, 22 Ala.App. 567, 117 So. 906, contains facts in some aspects analog......