Court Opinion

ID: 9824901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:40:23.244401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:12.861759
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
This case was well and ably tried. An exceedingly large number of witnesses were *229examined. It is the second conviction of this appellant. But our duty is to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court, and, under those decisions, as well as some prior adjudications of this court in line therewith, we must hold that the action of the trial court in sustaining the state’s objection to the question propounded by defendant to the state’s' witness John Butler, on his cross-examination’ after the witness had stated that he was a brother of the man, for assaulting whom defendant was on trial, and that he had helped employ counsel, which question was: “I-low much did you pay (counsel to assist the state in this case)?” was reversible error. Dickey v. State, 197 Ala. 610, 73 So. 72; Davidson v. State, 19 Ala. App. 77, 95 So. 54; Hembree v. State, 20 Ala. App. 181, 101 So. 221; Ham v. State, ante, p. 103, 105 So. 390.
We are not allowed to say by our holding that we are of the opinion that the result of the trial would not have been different had the question been allowed. Ex parte Damon Ford, 213 Ala. 410, 104 So. 840.
It was likewise error to permit the questions to the witness Parsons, over defendant’s objections, as to whether or not his testimony on a former trial was true.
The matters treated herein were not discussed in detail in the opinion formerly handed down, and what we said therein is adhered to, except as modified by this opinion.
The judgment of affirmance is set aside, this opinion added to that formerly written, and for the error first hereinabove pointed out the judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.