Court Opinion

ID: 6525469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 19:18:52.405972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:12.077230
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant’s counsel requests that we review the ruling of the trial court in sustaining the State’s objection to the following statement in the showing for defendant’s absent witness, Frank Barnard:
“I had been trying to get Jimmy to go-home but he would not do so.”
The showing was to- the effect that Frank: Barnard and deceased were cousins. They; had been in Birmingham together since-morning and had been drinking! They had' driven to the filling station together a few minutes before the difficulty occurred.
The action of the court in sustaining the objection was without error. The-statement was an opinion and conclusion of‘ the witness and invaded the province of the-jury. The witness should' detail the facts-, and circumstances and let the jury decide whether he was trying to get defendant to-go home. Lambert v. State, 208 Ala. 42, 93 So. 708; Prince v. State, 215 Ala. 276, 110 So. 407; Stewart v. State, 27 Ala. App. 315, 172 So. 675.
Application denied.