Case ID: ala-app_21/html/0532-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMFORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(109 So. 611)
    PASSMORE v. STATE.
    
      (7 Div. 232.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Sept. 7, 1926.)
    1. Larceny <&wkey;>30(!0).
    Indictment for grand larceny, describing money stolen as $5 bill and three $1 bills of paper currency of the United States was sufficient.
    2. Larceny <&wkey;40(8).
    Proof that property stolen consisted of $5 bill and three $1 bills met allegation that stolen property was one $5 bill and three $1 bills of paper currency of United States.
    3. Witnesses <&wkey;>395 — Permitting solicitor to prove what witness had testified on preliminary trial before any effort by defendant to impeach his testimony held error.
    In prosecution for larceny, where on cross-examination principal state’s witness denied that he testified at preliminary trial that he could not say whether other man had gun or not, permitting solicitor to prove by witness. just what he did swear on preliminary trial, without any effort by defendant to impeach his testimony, was error.
    4. Criminal lav/ <&wkey;785(l6).
    Instruction that if two named witnesses, or either of them, willfully and corruptly swore falsely to material fact, jury might disregard all their testimony, was error as predicating impeachment of both witnesses on testimony of either.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Talladega County; R. B. Carr, Judge.
    Jesse Passmore was convicted of grand larceny, and be appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Knox, Dixon, Sims & Bingbam, of Talladega, for appellant.
    Description of tbe money must be proven substantially as alleged. 36 C. J. 853. When a predicate is laid for impeachment of a witness, until testimony is offered to support tbe predicate, tbe other party cannot introduce evidence as to what tbe witness formerly testified. Tbe charge given for tbe state was bad.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for tbe State.
    Brief of counsel did not reach tbe Reporter.
   SAMFORD, J.

Tbe indictment describes tbe money stolen as “one five dollar bill and three one dollar bills of tbe paper currency of the United States of America.” This was a description sufficient to put tbe defendant on notice as to the $5 bill and tbe three $1 bills alleged to have been stolen. Collins v. State, 14 Ala. App. 54, 70 So. 995.

When proof was made that tbe property stolen consisted of money, and that it was one $5 bill and three $1 bills, tbe allegation in the indictment as to what money had been stolen was met. The contention ■ that the description of the money was not sustained by proof is not sustained.

On the cross-examination of the principal state’s witness, defendant’s counsel ashed witness if he did not swear in the preliminary trial that he could not say just whether the other man had a gun or not, to which he answered that he did not; whereupon the solicitor was permitted to prove by the witness just what he did swear to on the preliminary trial, before any effort had been made by defendant to impeach his testimony. The rule does not permit a party to bolster up the testimony of a witness by proof that at a former time or on a former trial the witness had testified to the same facts. It is only where predicate has been properly laid and proof made of a contradictory statement testified to that a witness will be permitted to go into a prior conversation or testimony and give his version of what actually took place. Until defendant had sought to impeach the testimony of the witness, it was error to permit the solicitor to bring out what was actually testified to by the witness on the preliminary trial.

The court at the request of the state gave this charge:

“The court charges the jury that, if they believe from the evidence Jesse Passmore and Sam Gogins, or either of them, has willfully and corruptly sworn falsely to any material fact in the case, they may, if they see fit, disregard all •of their testimony.”

This charge predicates impeachment of the testimony of both witnesses upon the willful and corrupt swearing of either.

The giving of this charge was error.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded. 
      <@3»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes