Court Opinion

ID: 9825330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:39:31.80785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:42.943318
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The question raised by the associate counsel for the state on this rehearing is governed by the rule announced in Phœnix Insurance Co. v. Moog, 78 Ala. 284, 56 Am. Rep. 31, this rule being;
“When a question is propounded to a witness on the stand, which calls for evidence prima facie relevant and legal, the refusal of the court to allow it js an error which will work a reversal, although the answer, or proposed answer, of the witness is not stated.”
See, also, Birmingham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. Barrett, 179 Ala. 274, 290, 60 South. 262.
In the instant case the principal witness for the state (Terry) had testified as to what he had said, and 'also as to his actions at the home of the defendant on the morning next after the alleged homicide, and the, testimony is without conflict that defendant’s witness, Allen Davidson, was present on that occasion, and heard what was said by Terry, and saw what was done by him. The state had gone into all that was said and done on that occasion by Terry and others, and, having done so, the defendant was entitled to inquire, by way of rebuttal, of his witness what had been said and done by Terry, and to deprive him of this opportunity was an injustice. The inquiry as to the conversation had on that particular occasion, and what was in fact done by witness Terry, was not only prima facie relevant and legal, but was vital to defendant’s case in rebuttal. As before stated, it was without dispute that defendant’s witness was then arid there present; he was therefore competent to testify in rebuttal as to what Terry had said, and as to what he had done at that particular time and place. The general .objection interposed by the state should have been overruled. We find this apt expression in the case of Mobile, J. & K. C. R. R. Co. v. Hawkins, 163 Ala. 565, 588, 51 South. 37, 44:
“Where plaintiff has given evidence as to a conversation, defendant may also give his version of it.”
And further;
“A witness who is competent may testify without being specifically interrogated; and in view of the time [and place] at which this testimony was offered, and the conditions then obtaining, we cannot conceive of or presume any reason that would justify its exclusion.”
See, also, Wefel v. Stillman, 151 Ala. 249, 44 South. 203.
In Perdue v. State, 17 Ala. App. 500, 86 South. 158, this court said:
“State witness Dr. Yielding on direct examination was permitted to testify what took place at defendant’s home at the time of the arrest of this defendant and another by the sheriff, and also as to some conversation which occurred there at that time. On cross-examination of this witness the court sustained the state’s objection to several questions propounded by defendant’s counsel to this witness relative to the same matter. In .these rulings there was error. It was competent for the defendant to cross-examine this witness on these matters, and the court should have permitted *644this cross-examination. The same is true as to the direct examination of witness Erassie De Jarnette. She testified that ‘the sheriff and Dr. Yielding came to my house that night.’ Counsel for defendant thereupon propounded this question: ‘State what, if anything, they did in your house.’ The court sustained the state’s objection to this question, and defendant duly and legally excepted. Upon what theory the objection was made and sustained we are unable to understand. The question was objected to, without stating any grounds upon which the objection was predicated. The question called for relevant and competent testimony, and the general objection should have been overruled. Witness Yielding had testified for the state what he and the sheriff did that night at the house of defendant, and certainly under all rules of evidence the defendant was entitled to rebut this testimony.”
The point in question here is identical with the excerpt above quoted.
Application overruled.