Court Opinion

ID: 9825308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:34:17.188087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:40.987051
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant complains that this court did not give due consideration to that line of testimony offered by him for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of state witness Davidson, in which he testified that the defendant appeared to be drunk or under the influence of whisky. The court did not err in permitting Davidson to testify that defendant appeared to be drunk or that his actions *226at the time of the collision indicated drunkenness. 7 Alabama and Southern Digest, Criminal Law, &wkey;457. If as a matter of fact defendant’s acts at that time were due to a blow on the head, that fact was open to proof by defendant and the issue would then be one for the jury.
Defendant also complains that he was not permitted to impeach this testimony by proof of bias on the part of Davidson. Bias on the part of a witness may always be shown as tending to discredit his testimony. But the fact that other parties had settled a damage suit growing out of a collision in which witness was involved was res inter alios acta and not admissible for any purpose.
The counsel for appellant during the trial made insistent and persistent efforts to introduce testimony which the court ruled was illegal. This resulted in much wrangling between the attorneys and some sharp retorts by the court. These colloquies were provoked by defendant’s counsel due to his insistences, after rulings by the court, it is unfortunate that such situations sometimes arise in the trial of cases, and should be avoided when possible; but in this case the trial judge repeatedly cautioned the jury that they were to pay no attention to these things, but were to be guided by the evidence only.
In the examination of Delozier, a witness for the state, he was asked by the solicitor: “What I am talking about is was his actions that of a man who was under the influence of whisky, his staggering and falling there, and his actions in sitting in the car, and all of his actions, and asking you what had happened, — were those actions the actions of a man under the influence of whisky?” The answer was: “Yes, he acted like there was something the matter with him. He was either shook up over the wreck or there was something the matter with him some way or another.” This answer cured any error in rulings on objections to the question. The answer does not decide the question, but leaves it open to the jury.
The state was permitted to prove, over objection and exception, that a witness not present at the time of the accident, but, arriving immediately afterwards, examined the road and found marks and signs of the accident which indicated that the cars collided on the right-hand side of the road going west. This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that witnesses must depose to facts in detail, leaving to the jury the finding of the conclusion. The testimony is classed as a collective fact.
Let the application be overruled.