Court Opinion

ID: 9690403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:11:09.992012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:56.714400
License: Public Domain

*699ON REHEARING
Appellant’s counsel calls our attention to several instances involving rulings by the trial court, record, pages 475-482, wherein Donna Veith, as a rebuttal witness for the .State, was allowed to give testimony contrary to testimony given by the appellant and cites same to be error. From appellant’s brief:
“On Page 475 of the Record, when Donna Veith was first being examined, we ■objected and took exception in the Court letting into evidence that Donna Veith liad gotten a warrant for her husband on ■assault and battery and nonsupport; we ■objected again on Page 477 of the transcript when Donna Veith testified that her husband had left her in Jacksonville. We objected to the hearsay testimony twice on Page 479 and 480 of the Record (reference apartment where appellant lived after leaving Donna Veith and children) ; we objected further on Page 482 ■as to the hearsay of what the brother had said; there are many more incidents in the Record typical to these pages where prejudicial testimony was introduced by the State and defendant objected and was overruled and we excepted.”
We cannot agree that the rulings referred to are error. It is within the trial court’s discretion to receive, in rebuttal, testimony which more properly should have been offered as part of the case in chief. Blackwell v. State, 264 Ala. 553, 88 So.2d 347, and cases cited.
Such matters having been gone into in the appellant’s testimony were proper matters for rebuttal testimony by the State through Donna Veith; and we cannot say that such rulings constituted an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in the instances cited. Burns v. State, 246 Ala. 135, 19 So.2d 450; Scott v. State, 246 Ala. 545, 21 So.2d 703; Blackwell v. State, supra, and cases cited.
Opinion extended, application overruled.
All the Judges concur.