Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 13 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 895. |
| Citation | 93 So. 284,18 Ala.App. 573 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; C. P. Almon, Judge.
Sam Williams was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Bowers Dixon & Bowron, of Birmingham, and G. E. Barnett, of Florence, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This cause is submitted on motion to establish a bill of exceptions and on the merits. Upon an examination of the record, we find that the judgment was rendered October 10 1921, bill of exceptions regularly presented to the presiding judge December 20, 1921, and duly and regularly signed by him March 17, 1922, and filed with the clerk of the circuit court April 1, 1922. The presentation, signing, and filing appear to be in all things regular and legal, and the bill of exception being incorporated in the record, as it should be there is no occasion for any action on the motion to establish the bill of exception and therefore the motion to establish is dismissed.
The defendant and Woodall, the assaulted party, were both employés of the Southern Railway, and had a difficulty in the superintendent's office in Sheffield, in which defendant shot and seriously wounded Woodall. During the cross-examination of Cameron, the superintendent of that division, the defendant undertook to prove that the defendant had not been discharged from the service of the railway company and that if acquitted defendant could recover of the railway company his back time. These facts, even if true, could not possibly have any bearing, even remotely, upon the issues involved in this case.
The witness having testified that he had not "helped to select the jury in this case," the fact that he looked over the jury list could not affect the issues.
The witness having testified on cross-examination that he had "talked it over with witnesses summoned for the state several times and gone into the details of the case with other witnesses," he was further asked to name the witnesses with whom he had talked. This witness was the superintendent of the division under whom both defendant and Woodall worked; the difficulty occurred in his office and in his presence, and grew out of a controversy between the witness and defendant. The prior testimony of this witness had shown some activity on his part in the interest of the prosecution, and on cross-examination the defendant was entitled to inquire into the extent of his activities and to know which of the state's witnesses had been talked to by him, and even as to what he said to them, as tending to show bias. Banks v. State (Ala. Sup.) 39 So. 921; Whitsett v. Belue, 172 Ala. 256, 54 So. 677.
If there was a concert of action, or conspiracy, or improper influence that would have a tendency to show a bias on the part of the state's witnesses in giving their testimony the defendant would have a right to show it and, when the state's witnesses were on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sparks v. State
...of proof on an indictment charging assault with intent to murder. Buffalow v. State, 34 Ala.App. 418, 41 So.2d 417; Williams v. State, 18 Ala.App. 573, 93 So. 284; Kelly v. State, 15 Ala.App. 63, 72 So. 573; Smith v. State, 141 Ala. 59, 37 So. 423. We have attempted to respond to each quest......
-
Williams v. State
...of the cause.' See also Holland v. State, 24 Ala.App. 199, 132 So. 601; Griffin v. State, 90 Ala. 596, 8 So. 670; Williams v. State, 18 Ala.App. 573, 93 So. 284; Moulton v. State, 199 Ala. 411, 74 So. While presenting his defense in chief the defendant introduced a number of witnesses who d......
-
Oates v. State, 8 Div. 787
...341; Banks v. State, Ala. 39 So. 921; Smith v. State, 182 Ala. 38, 62 So. 184; Knowles v. Blue, 209 Ala. 27, 95 So. 481; Williams v. State, 18 Ala.App. 573, 93 So. 284; Lakey v. State, 20 Ala.App. 78, 101 So. 537, certiorari denied Exparte Lakey, 211 Ala. 615, 101 So. 541; Love v. State, 31......
-
Gray v. State
...34 Ala.App. 253, 39 So.2d 29; Holland v. State, 24 Ala.App. 199, 132 So. 601; Griffin v. State, 90 Ala. 596, 8 So. 670; Williams v. State, 18 Ala.App. 573, 93 So. 284; Moulton v. State, 199 Ala. 411, 74 So. 454; Neal v. State, 36 Ala.App. 156, 54 So.2d 613; and Nix v. State, 40 Ala.App. 357......