Case ID: ala-app_16/html/0451-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BROWN, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(78 South. 714)
    WALLACE v. STATE.
    (8 Div. 579.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    April 16, 1918.)
    1. Criminal Law <&wkey;463 — Evidence—Opinions — Wounds.
    Any witness familiar by experience with the appearance and treatment of wounds, particularly physicians and surgeons, may give an opinion as to manner in which a wound was probably inflicted and the instrument used.
    2. Criminal Law <&wkey;457t— Opinions — Drunkenness.
    A witness may testify that one was drunk, or acted like he was drunk.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; C. P. Almon, Judge.
    Branch Wallace was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Dr. Lindsey, after stating that he was a practicing physician of 20 years’ experience, and that he had had experience in treating wounds made with heavy instruments, and that he saw the wound inflicted about the time it occurred, was asked the following question: “In your judgment, from the character of the wound, and from your experience in treating wounds of like character, would you say it was inflicted by some heavy instrument?” The witness was permitted, over objection, to answer: “Yes; a heavy instrument of some kind.” Another witness was asked: “Was Branch Wallace drinking?” The answer was : “I taken him to be; he acted like it.”
    R. T. Simpson, of Florence, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and David W. W. Fuller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   BROWN, P. J.

Any witness familiar by experience with the appearance and treatment of wounds, particularly physicians and surgeons, may give an opinion as to the manner in which a wound was probably inflicted and the instrument used. Rash v. State, 61 Ala. 89-93; Underhill’s Cr. Ev. § 312; 1 Greenl. Ev. 440; Pearce v. State, 14 Ala. App. 120, 72 South. 213. The testimony of the state’s witness, Hr. Lindsey, was within the rule. It is permissible for a witness to testify that one was drunk, or “acted like he was drunk.” 1 Mayf. Dig. 336, § 37.

Counsel for appellant have submitted no brief or argument, and we have carefully examined the record and find no reversible error therein, or anything further that warrants discussion.

Affirmed.