Willingham v. State
| Decision Date | 03 February 1914 |
| Citation | 64 So. 544,10 Ala.App. 161 |
| Parties | WILLINGHAM v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; S.L. Brewer, Judge.
R.C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant, who was tried and convicted of selling whisky, was, as a witness for himself on cross-examination by the state, required by the court, over the timely objection and exception of defendant's counsel, to answer, which he did affirmatively, if he had not last year been convicted in that county of selling or keeping for sale intoxicating liquors.
Such evidence was entirely immaterial to any issue before the jury on the present trial and was, we do not doubt, highly prejudicial to the case of the defendant. The court was in error in admitting such evidence before the jury. Hammock v. State, 8 Ala.App. 367, 62 So. 322. After defendant's conviction on the present trial, the court had the right, and it was its duty in determining what punishment it would inflict upon defendant, to ascertain for itself from the records whether or not the defendant had been previously convicted of violating the prohibition laws, since the statute (Acts 1909, p. 10, § 3) makes it incumbent upon the court on a second and every subsequent conviction to impose, as additional punishment, a hard labor sentence for not less than three nor more than six months; but certainly such fact of a prior conviction for a similar offense has and should have no place in the deliberations of the jury upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant on the present trial. For the error of the court in admitting this evidence, the judgment of conviction is reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. State
...67, 88 So. 376; Bertalsen v. State, 20 Ala.App. 539, 103 So. 480; Shields v. State, 20 Ala.App. 639, 104 So. 685; Willingham v. State, 10 Ala.App. 161, 64 So. 544. evidence, in our view, was inadmissible for any purpose. Therefore, the interposition of general objections sufficiently presen......
-
Yates v. State
... ... 1923, and section 99, Title 29, Code of 1940. The ... construction placed upon it therefore became a feature of the ... statute as it was reenacted in the Code of 1940 ... The ... question came before the Court of Appeals in Willingham v ... State, 10 Ala.App. 161, 64 So. 544, in which it does not ... appear that the indictment contained the allegation that it ... was a second offense. The court held that proof of a former ... conviction was not permissible, but that after conviction the ... court had a right to investigate ... ...
-
Lyles v. State
... ... 789; ... Moore v. State, 10 Ala.App. 179, 64 So. 520 ... If ... this testimony was permitted for the purpose of showing that ... the charge contained in the indictment was a second or ... subsequent offense, it was also error, as expressly held in ... the case of Willingham v. State, 10 Ala.App. 161, 64 ... So. 544; Schroeder v. State, 84 So. 309. Recent ... statutes on the question of suppressing intemperance and ... providing punishments for the violation of the prohibition ... laws have in no manner changed the rule of evidence, and the ... purpose thereof, as ... ...
-
Miller v. State
... ... superinduced by illegal testimony or appeals of prosecuting ... officers, not based upon legal evidence. The error is patent, ... and the injury is apparent. Cobb v. State, 20 ... Ala.App. 542, 103 So. 387; Schroeder v. State, 17 ... Ala.App. 246, 84 So. 309; Willingham v. State, 10 ... Ala.App. 161, 64 So. 544; Lyles v. State, 18 ... Ala.App. 62, 88 So. 375; Pippin v. State, 197 Ala ... 613, 73 So. 340; Fuller v. State, 147 Ala. 37, 41 ... So. 774; Smith v. State, 129 Ala. 89, 29 So. 699, 87 ... Am.St.Rep. 47 ... The ... state was permitted to ... ...