The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1904-07-10
PARRISH ". THE STATE.

EAnnlSf1 v. Il.
Indictment for Murder.--Appeal from
the Circuit Court OF Jefferson.
1. Organization of Jury; examination
OF juror upon his voir dire.--In the or
ganization Of jury for the trial of a
capital case. where the court has exam
ined juror on his voir dire and among
other things he states that he has no
fixed opinion in the case, and the court
has pronounced such juror competent.
| 1t Is not error for the court to refuse to
ask or to allow the defendant to ask
such juror the further question, as TO
whether he has ANY opinion at all as
to the merits of the case" or whether
or not he had heard the facts of the
case discussed.
2. Same; same-In such case,
where upon his examination voir dire
a juror says that he was a conduct tor
on certain street railway, and after
said juror has been pronounced COM
petent by the court it is not error for
the court to refuse to allow the defend
ant to ask said juror: What car line
do you run on?"
3. Homicide; admissibility of evil
dence.-On a trial under an Indictment
for murder. where a witness testifies
that he was present at the time of the
homicide which occurred where there
were several people, and that he did not
hear any conversation between the dc
PENDANT and the deceased. 1t Is permits
sible for the State to ask the witness
whether or not he heard any other
conversation; and the answer OF the
witness in which he testified to certain
statements by deceased and also certain
statements made by the defendant i'm
mediately after the shooting, are a l.
MISSILE.
4. Same; same.-On a trial under an
indictment for murder, where the evil
dence shows that the deceased while
being put off the car by police officer
was shot by the defendant. it is per-
missible for witness who was present
at the time of the killing. and who was
assisting the officer. to testify to state
ments made by the defendant to the
officer. in RESPONSE to the latter's in
quiry as to why he shot the deceased
such statements involving the defend
ants admission OF the killing.
s. Witness; when witness can not be
asked as to the payment of his ex-
penses.-Where, in trial under an In
dictment for murder. one of the wit
nesses fer the State testified that he
lived in Memphis. Tenn. and that he
knew a brother of the deceased, II IL
competent for the defendant on the
cross-examination of said witness. to
ask him what had caused him to come
from Memphis to the place of the trial.
or as to whether witness himself paid
his expenses; such questions not being
permissible to show bias or interest in
the case; and the mere fact that he
knew the brother of the deceased, was
not sufficient to show bias or interest.
6. Homicide; admissibility of evil
dence.-On a trial under an indictment
for murder where one of the witnesses
for the State, on his cross-examination
testified that he knew brother of the
deceased. that said brother kept a sa
loon and that shortly after arriving In
the city where the trial was had he
went to the saloon kept by the brother
of the deceased IT is not error for the
court, upon the redirect examination
of the witness, to permit the State to
ask him II he knew whether the broth
er of the deceased owned or clerked in
the saloon to which he went.
Z. Trial and its incidents; not error
for the court to require witnesses to re-
answer questions.-There is no duty or
propriety requiring trial court to
compel a witness to again answer ques-
lions which he has already answered.:
and in the examination of a witness, 1t
is not error for the court to refuse to
require such witness to answer sec
ond time a question which he has al
ready answered.
s. Evidence; competency of witness
to testify as to insanity.-As to the
question of insanity vel non. non-expert
as well as expert witnesses may ex-
press their opinion as to the sanity or