Court Opinion

ID: 9699881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:54:40.105941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:59.236439
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing.
It is requested that we set out the testimony relating to statements testified to by State’s witnesses as having been made by defendant in the automobile en route to jail after the arrest, and in ’phone conversations at the jail.
Officer Dhority, after stating that defendants Vandiver and Riggs were not threatened in any way; were offered no reward or inducement to get them to talk; were not told it would be better for them to make a statement or worse if they did not do so, testified:
“A. Mr. Vandiver made the statement that they got off the bus on the highway and went through the woods to the still.
“Defendants object on the ground that the answer is not responsive to the question on the predicate laid.
“Objection overruled. Defendants except.
“Q. I will ask you if at the same time and place and in that same conversation if the defendant Vandiver over there in the presence of the defendant Riggs stated *532to you or stated to Mr. Yielding in your presence that he went down there to get some whiskey?
“Defendants object on the grounds as heretofore assigned.
“Objections overruled. Defendants except.
“A. He did.
******
“Q. Did you hear the conversation, that is, the defendant Vandiver’s conversation over the phone?
“The defendants object on the ground that any answer if given would be wholly illegal, irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in the case and it is not part of the res gestae.
“Objection overruled. Defendants except.
“A. I heard him talking over the phone, I couldn’t say what his conversation was exactly.
“By Mr. Tyree: We move to exclude the testimony. He is trying to impeach this witness on an immaterial matter.
“By the Court: Overruled.
“Q. For the purpose of refreshing your recollection did you hear the defendant Vandiver tell someone to get Morgan Van-diver or to go down to the river and tell Morgan Vandiver and his wife and the defendant’s wife that he was in jail?
“The defendants object. The solicitor is certainly leading the witness and he is attempting to impeach this witness on an immaterial matter.
“Objection overruled. Defendants except.
“By Mr. Potts: I will withdraw that question.
“Q. You said you didn’t recall his conversation. A. I don’t recall all of his conversation.
“Q. Shortly after that telephone conversation was made did you see Morgan Vandiver and the defen.-i&irt's wife, Minnie Vandiver, come to the jail there together? A. Yes sir.
“The defendants object on the grounds previously assigned.
“Objection overruled. Defendants except.
“By Mr. Tyree: May it please the court, may we have the same objections shown in each question.
“By the Court: Mr. Tyree, if you will, please sir, just make your objections to each question and I will rule on them.
“Q. Was it, Mr. Dhority, — how long, in your judgment was it before they came after that conversation?
“Defendants object on the same grounds heretofore assigned.
“Objections overruled. Defendants except.
“A. Just a very few minutes before they came. I would say around ten or fifteen minutes after the phone call until they came to the jail.
“Defendants object to this answer on the same grounds as heretofore assigned.
“Objection overruled. Defendants except.
“Cross Examination
“By M,r. Tyree: Q. You are not telling these gentlemen on the jury that in that conversation that the defendant said it was his still ? He didn’t admit that, did he ? A. No sir, he didn’t tell me it was his still.”
It is also requested that we set out these statements by defendant Riggs in identifying the photograph in question:
“By the Court: Q. Does it look like it did the day the still was there and you were arrested? A. It looks like it.
“Q. It looks just like it did?’ A. It looks just like it did.”
Application Overruled.