Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 11 April 1907 |
| Citation | 43 So. 575,149 Ala. 28 |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clarke County; John T. Lackland, Judge.
Sam Wright was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Alexander M. Carber, for the State.
The appellant, after severance, was convicted of murder in the second degree. The testimony on the part of the state tended to show that appellant, with others, among them one Bob Brown, attacked and beat to prostration one Linehan with sticks or pieces of rails, and one of them, Foster, then shot him to death. A witness for the state, having testified that Brown struck deceased a felling blow with a piece of fence rail, and contradicted herself (the bill states) in reference to the place from which Brown got the rail, was on the cross asked: "When you stated that Bob Brown stepped outside of the road as he came along behind you, you did not tell the truth?" A second question, in substance the same as that quoted, was propounded, and both were disallowed on the state's objection. These are the only exceptions appearing in the bill.
Whatever may be the justifiable latitude allowed the cross-examination, or the discretion reposed in the trial court on the cross-examination, of witnesses, the above question is intolerable. Whether what a witness has stated is the truth or not, as that verity appears or bears upon the issue submitted, is matter for the jury's decision, and not that of the witness; and in determining which of two statements is the truth, other circumstances and facts were present in the case to which the jury might refer in deciding the truth vel non of the one or the other statement. Besides, if this query were allowable, a conclusion of the witness would be invited.
We discover no error in the record, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elliott v. State, 1 Div. 141
...A question of whether or not a witness has told the truth calls for a conclusion and is invasive of the jury's province. Wright v. State, 149 Ala. 28, 43 So. 575; Miller v. State, 21 Ala.App. 261, 107 So. 226; Haynes v. State, 40 Ala.App. 106, 109 So.2d 738. In the following cases the Supre......
-
State v. Smith
...general proposition that the jury is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses, cites and principally relies upon Wright v. State, 149 Ala. 28, 43 So. 575 (1907), wherein the Supreme Court of Alabama held that the trial court did not err in sustaining an objection by the state to the f......
-
Haynes v. State
...see him practically all day.' The question called for a conclusion of the witness and was invasive of the jury's province. Wright v. State, 149 Ala. 28, 43 So. 575. But we agree with the State's contention that no error can be predicated on the court's ruling, because the question was not a......
-
Grimes v. City of Florence
... ... Nathan, of Sheffield, for appellant ... R.C ... Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ... the State ... WALKER, ... In the ... argument of the counsel for the appellant (the defendant ... below), complaint is made only of the ... Johnson v. State, 102 Ala. 1, 16 So. 99; Alabama ... Fertilizer Co. v. Lee, 79 Ala. 497; Smith v ... State, 145 Ala. 17, 40 So. 957; Wright v ... State, 149 Ala. 28, 43 So. 575; Wray v. State, ... 2 Ala.App. 139, 57 So. 144; Western Union Telegraph Co ... v. Cleveland, 169 Ala. 131, ... ...