Case ID: ala-app_18/html/0434-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRICKEN, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(92 South. 913)
    MARTIN v. STATE.
    (8 Div. 848.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    April 11, 1922.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;450 — Witness’ opinion as to guilt of defendant inadmissible.
    It was proper to exclude witness’ statement that he did not think that defendant was guilty.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;72l 1/2(3) — Solicitor’s argument as to number of witnesses testifying to defendant’s good character held proper.
    An argument to the jury, in which the solicitor said that a named witness was the only person from a stated community to testify as to defendant’s good character was unobjectionable.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County ; W. W. Haralson, Judge.
    Babe Martin was convicted of violation of the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The solicitor, in his argument to the jury, said:
    “Sam Gullatt is the only man brought from that community to testify for the defendant as to his good character.”
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    Counsel discuss the errors assigned, but without citation of authority.'
   BRICKEN, P. J.

This defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted for violating the prohibition law, and appeals.

The state contended that within the period of time covered by the indictment the defendant sold one quart of whisky to the state witness Medlock. There was ample evidence; if believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, upon which to predicate a verdict of guilty.

Only two exceptions were reserved to the rulings of the court upon this trial. The witness Gullatt, while testifying in behalf of defendant on cross-examination, volunteered the statement that “he did not think that the defendant was guilty.” Upon motion of the solicitor, the court properly excluded this statement. The exception of the defendant to this ruling is without merit, as the opinion of this witness could not be substituted for that of the jury, and it was for the determination of the jury to decide this, the only issue involved upon this trial.

The argument of the solicitor was not subject to the objection interposed thereto, and the court properly overruled same.

The record is without error. Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      <Scs>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBEB in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes