Case ID: ala_40/html/0355-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JUDGE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SMITHERMAN vs. THE STATE.
    [indictment for diving in adultery or fornication.]
    1. Acts subsequent to indictment; admissibility of . — Under an indictment for living in adultery or fornication, (Code, $ 3231,) evidence tending to show criminal conduct between the parties, subsequent to the finding^of the indictment, is, prima fade, irrelevant; and when offered, its relevancy must be shown by its connection with other evidence already adduced, or its proposal with other relevant evidence after-wards to be adduced.
    
      3. Admission of irrelevant evidence. — The admission of evidence which is, prima facie, irrelevant, and the relevancy of which is not affirmatively shown, will work a reversal of the judgment, unless the record shows that no injury resulted from its admission.
    From the Circuit Court of Bibb.
    Tried before the Hon. John Moore.
    The indictment in this case was found on the 20th April, 1866, and charged “that William Smitberman, a man, did live with Margaret Strong, a woman, in a state of adultery or fornication.” “On tbe trial,” at tbe October term, 1866, as tbe bill of exceptions states, “ when tbe case was called, tbe State introduced Samuel Frazer as a witness, who testified that, on tbe 20th April, 1866, one James Smitberman resided, with bis family, on a tract of land in- said county which belonged to said witness, and Margaret Strong resided with him; that said witness was at tbe bouse of said James Smitberman, about once a week, for two or three months next ensuing tbe 20th April, 1866, and occasionally saw William Smitberman there during that time; and that William Smitberman told him, after said 20th April, 1866, that be bad started to Mississippi with Margaret Strong, but found tbe waters too high to travel, and returned; all of which was subsequent to tbe 20th April aforesaid. Tbe defendant objected to each sentence of tbis evidence separately; but bis objections were over-' ruled, and the evidence allowed to go to tbe jury; to which tbe defendant excepted.”
    Heelin & McCraw, for tbe prisoner.
    Jno. W. A. Sanford, Attorney-General, contra.
    
   JUDGE, J.

Tbe evidence admitted against tbe objection of tbe defendant, related exclusively to transactions which occurred subsequent to tbe finding of tbe indictment. In prosecutions like tbe present, evidence of tbis character is, primafacie, irrelevant; and, when offered, its relevancy should be shown by its connection with acts already in evidence, or its proposal with facts subsequently to be established. If its relevancy be not shown, it is error to permit it to be introduced, unless tbe record affirmatively shows that tbe defendant could not have been injured by it, which is not shown by tbe record in this case. As to tbe relevancy of such evidence, in cases like tbe present, and tbe weight to which it may be entitled, see tbe very clear and satisfactory opinion of Goldthwaite, J., in Lawson & Swinney v. The State, 20 Ala. 65. See, also, Shepherd’s Digest, 616, § 468.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded. -