Title: Straughn v. State

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

121 So. 2d 883 (1960)
Frank STRAUGHN, alias
v.
STATE of Alabama.
3 Div. 860.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
January 21, 1960.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and John F. Proctor, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Jones & Nix, Evergreen, opposed.
PER CURIAM.
We granted certiorari to review the opinion and judgment of the Court of Appeals in the case of Straughn v. State of Alabama, 121 So. 2d 882.
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction on the ground that the *884 trial court erred in overruling Straughn's objection to a question propounded the State's witness Brock and in overruling Straughn's motion to exclude the answer to the question.
The question and the answer thereto are as follows:
The Court of Appeals did not decide whether the record showed Brock to have been an expert in the use of firearms. However, we construe the opinion of the Court of Appeals to hold if it be conceded that Brock was an expert in the use of firearms that he could not express an opinion as to the distance between the deceased and the barrel of the gun held by the defendant at the time the fatal shot was fired.
We disagree with that holding.
In the recent case of Washington v. State, 269 Ala. 146, 112 So. 2d 179, 188, we said:
In the Alexander case cited and relied on in the Washington case, the Court of Appeals said in part as follows:
Thus it appears that this court and the Court of Appeals have held that an expert could express an opinion as to the distance of the gun from the deceased at the time the wound was inflicted.
True, in both of those cases the expert's opinion was based on the presence or absence of powder burns.
In our opinion the same rule would apply as to an expert who bases his opinion on the area of the body of the victim covered by shot fired from a shotgun.
In Phillips v. State, 170 Ala. 5, 9, 54 So. 111, 113, this court held as follows:
In our opinion the testimony of the witness Brock was not in regard to matters of common knowledge and hence was properly admitted if Brock was shown to have been an expert, since the distance of the defendant from the deceased at the time the shot was fired was a factor in the case.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court.
Reversed and remanded.
LAWSON, SIMPSON, STAKELY, GOODWYN and MERRILL, JJ., concur.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and COLEMAN, J., dissent.