Court Opinion

ID: 9669742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:08:46.674149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:00.040355
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
CATES, Presiding Judge.
In the next to last paragraph of the opinion the first sentence should read:
“We consider that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.”
As to the testimony concerning the hub cap of the defendant’s truck, we note the following in appellant’s brief on rehearing:
“Although the Court in its opinion referred to this witness as expert. We contend that the transcript itself amply shows that he was not an expert and did not consider himself to be.
“When asked by the Trial Judge about his qualifications and about how many cases he had investigated where shotgun pellets struck metal, he referred to one case. * * *
“When asked by counsel for appellant if he could tell whether or not an automobile was moving when being shot at the witness answered ‘No, sir, not without seeing it.’
“On page 168 we find the following:
“ ‘MR. CARMICHAEL: I understand that, but Mr. Graham was qualifying you to be an expert and—
“ ‘A. Oh, no, I’m no expert, no sir.’
“Against a background of this type the witness was permitted to state as follows :
“ ‘A. It looked to me as if the gun was fired close to the front of the truck, like standing closer to the front of the truck at an angle to the back and down.’
“ * * * Counsel for defendant objected to this and asked that the answer be stricken and was overruled by the Court.
“Thus a non-expert was permitted to testify to the very important question of the relative position of the combatants. This was a 'question which should have been decided by the jury from all of the facts surrounding the shooting and not from the conclusion of a witness. That this is error has been the holding in Ala*598bama from McKee v. State, 82 Ala. 32, 2 So. 451, to Padgett v. State, 49 Ala.App. 130, 269 So.2d 147, cert. den. 289 Ala. 749, 269 So.2d 154.
******
“ * * * An examination of the record will show that no attempt was made to correlate the position of the wheel at the times indicated.”
Conceding arguendo that Vickery was not shown to be an expert in how pellets bounce off hub caps, nevertheless, his testimony was so ambiguous as to be harmless :
“MR. GRAHAM CONTINUES: Now, Mr. Vickery, my question is not largely based on this picture, but what you saw on the panel of Mr. Woods’ truck itself' — did it appear that the pellets hit at a 90 degrees — or straight in or on the" angle from right or left — the place where it actually hit the metal?
“A. It looked to me as if the gun was fired close to the front of the truck, like standing closer to the front of the truck at an angle to the back and down.
“MR. CARMICHAEL: Now we object to that, it is a conclusion, and ask that the answer be stricken from the record. He is not shown to be an expert.
“BYTHE COURT: Overruled.
“MR. CARMICHAEL: We reserve an exception.
“MR. GRAHAM CONTINUES: Are these some of the photographs or pictures you took of the bullet damage that you observed on Cletus Woods’ truck at the time and place you told us about?
“A. Yes, sir.”
The photographs had already been introduced in evidence “by agreement.” (R. 150).
Application overruled.
All the Judges concur.