Court Opinion

ID: 9825395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:52:42.183347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:46.677717
License: Public Domain

SAMFORD, J.
Although the record is voluminous, containing, as it does, 125 pages, there are but 4 rulings of the court insisted upon as error by the appellant.
[1] There were numerous witnesses offered by the defendant, who testified “ to his good character, and, on cross-examination by counsel for the state, these witnesses testified that they had not heard about his shooting Alto Baxter; or about his knocking Den McLain in the head with a shotgun; nor his cutting Cohn Dillara with a knife; or running into Willie Shipman with a razor; or about his interfering with Mr.. Teal when he was about to arrest his (defendant’s) sister. This line of examination has been approved by the courts for the purpose of testing the witness in his opinion as to what constitutes good character. Andrews v. State, 159 Ala. 17, 48 South. 858; Vaughan v. State, 201 Ala. 472, 78 South. 378; Stout v. State, 15 Ala. App. 206, 72 South. 762.
[2] Upon redirect examination of each of these witnesses, defendant’s counsel asked this question: “If these things had happened you would have heard about them, wouldn’t you?” It was not a question,of proper inquiry as to whether these things had happened or not; the question addressed, to the witnesses by the state’s counsel was as to whether there was such talk in the community in connection with the defendant, as affecting his general standing or reputation. Furthermore, the question by defendant’s counsel called for the conclusion of the witness.
[3] Charge 1 is bad in that it omits the time and place. Johnson v. State, 16 Ala. App. 72, 75 South. 278.
There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.