Court Opinion

ID: 9938734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:03:51.387688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:24.258838
License: Public Domain

In the third paragraph above, we said the testimony of Mr. Godwin would support an inference that the appellant was an aggressor.
Appellant's counsel, on rehearing, correctly points out that Mr. Godwin's testimony on that point came in by way of rebuttal. This, however, does not change our conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to legally support the verdict both when the State first rested and at the end of all the testimony.
First, the State, on chief, made out a prima facie case.1Second, the defense brought in new matter tending to show self-defense. Third, the State, on rebuttal, offered proof counter to self-defense.
Appellant further submits that we are wrong in treating Mr. Godwin's testimony as part of the affirmative proof upon the main issue of the case. Mr. Godwin's testimony on rebuttal, appellant contends, should be confined to impeachment. We are referred to Jones on Evidence (5th Ed.), § 932 (footnote 8, Vol. 4, p. 1751), citing Branford Trust Co. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 102 Conn. 481, 129 A. 379,42 A.L.R. 1450. However, we believe the rule referred to in that section applies only to a witness who is not a party.
In § 934, under the catch line "Party as Witness," Jones points out that the statements of a party are admitted upon a different principle. There is a comment by the author (footnote 9, § 934, p. 1758) to the effect that fair play would seem to require that the same predicatory foundation should be laid in impeaching a party as is required with respect to other witnesses.
Judge McElroy, in his Law of Evidence in Alabama (2d Ed.), Vol. 1, p. 380, § 159.02, states:
 "Of course, if the witness is a party the self-contradictory statement is also an admission and hence is substantive evidence against such party. Kimmey v. Calloway, 52 Ala. 222; Hill v. State, 194 Ala. 11, 69 So. 941, syl. 17, 2 ALR 509; Dickson v. Dinsmore, 219 Ala. 353, 122 So. 437; Anno: 21 AnnCas 1241; Bennett v. Roberson [Robertson], 108 [107] Vt 202, 177 A 625, 98 ALR 152."
From Blackwell v. State, 264 Ala. 553, 88 So.2d 347, in criminal cases, the rule appears to be that, (1) if the claimed prior self-contradictory statement amounts, *Page 46 
in law, to a confession not shown to have been voluntarily made, or (2) if it be not tantamount to a confession in that it amounts merely to an admission against interest, then the predicate to impeach should be put to the accused as to any other witness.
Mr. Godwin's rebuttal testimony refuted the defendant's answer that she was not carrying a knife opened. The tendency of her admission as given by Godwin was twofold: he impeached her credibility and he showed an admission partly opposed to her claim of self-defense. The defense did not move the Court to limit the effect of Mr. Godwin's testimony to impeachment as Daugherty v. State, 24 Ala. App. 591,139 So. 439, indicates might have been done.
Application overruled.
1 Evidence of the presence of a defendant alone with his alleged victim and of circumstances of death consistent with the accused's abilities and opportunity to do the deed may support a prima facie case of homicide. McMurtrey v. State, 39 Ala. App. 319, 101 So.2d 88.