Court Opinion

ID: 9825581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:25:54.115083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:01.428811
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
It is but fair to the court to state that, though a perfect mass of exceptions was reserved on the trial of this case in the lower court, no brief was filed by appellant on the original submission of the appeal, and the brief and argument on behalf of appellant comes on application for rehearing.
In the original opinion, we were, perhaps, too general in making the statement in reference to rulings of the court upon the admission of testimony:
“Nearly all of these exceptions are without merit, and we hold that, in each instance where they relate to the res gestas, the objections were properly overruled or the action of the court was without prejudicial error except as shall hereinafter appear.”
It is now pointed out in brief and insistence is made that the trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting the state to prove that the defendant had been previously convicted of violating the prohibition law. This court has many times decided and recently has reiterated in Miller v. State (7 Div. *503176, Ala. App.) 109 So. 528,1 that error may he predicated upon a ruling of the trial court permitting proof of a prior conviction for possessing whisky not connected with the charge then being tried. We still adhere to that rule. In this ease the solicitor on cross-examination was permitted to draw from the defendant the statement that he (defendant) had not been convicted on a charge of violating the prohibition law within the last two years, and then, over timely objection and exception, the solicitor was permitted to prove that defendant had been so convicted. This evidence was by the express ruling of the court limited to impeachment of defendant’s testimony. That defendant had sold or had been convicted of selling whisky within two years was inadmissible and immaterial, and therefore could not be made the basis for the impeachment of his testimony. Abrams v. State, 17 Ala. App. 379, 84 So. 862.
The application for rehearing is granted. Affirmance set aside, and the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.

 Ante, p. 495.