Court Opinion

ID: 9825388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:51:08.486351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:46.374334
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant’s counsel in brief, on application for rehearing, points out several rulings of the trial court which he insists constitutes reversible error. As to those pointed out the court proceeds to consider as follows;
[9, 10] The defendant while being examined as a witness in his own behalf and in chief having testified that the party alleged to have been robbed, and the woman who was in the ear with them, had the car stopped, got out, the -man taking a coat, went into the the woods, and remained hid for 25 or 30 minutes, and then came back, and the man charged the woman with having taken his money and threatened to shoot her, the solicitor on cross-examination elicited the fact that defendant knew what kind of a woman the woman was, that defendant had been with her, that defendant remained in the car while the man and woman was in the woods, and none of the others did. The solicitor was permitted, over the objection of defendant, to ask this question, “That good looking woman go out into the bushes, and you didn’t go out and have intercourse with her? ” to which defendant replied, “Not at that time.” This we think, under the facts of this case, was within the range of legitimate cross-examination. The whole statement of facts presents a ease revolting to the finer sensibilities, “ad nauseatum,” and one question more or less along the same line, bearing on the behavior of the defendant at the time and place of the alleged robbery, would hardly change the result, in the minds of a jury who had been compelled to listen to the entire details of a transaction, which in its most favorable light was discreditable and disgraceful to all who were in the party. On cross-examination great latitude is allowed, and in this instance the trial court did not exceed its discretion.
[11] Bob Cameron, another of defendant’s witnesses, had testified that he was in jail with defendant and others and saw the woman who was in the party, and now a state’s witness, strip naked and stand so that she might be seen by the other inmates. Why and when he was in jail was a pertinent inquiry on cross-examination.
[12] While Nix was being examined as a witness for defendant, he was asked this question, “State if at any time over there George Taylor took that man’s poeketbook and put it in the tool box in your car,” to which the witness answered, “No, sir.” The question was objected to because it was leading and the objection was sustained. This ruling was without error.
The constituent elements of the crime of robbery had been twice clearly defined in the oral charge of the court and again in written charge R given at the request of defendant. Charge 6, in slightly different language, was but a repetition of what had already been charged, announced no new principle, and could only have tended to confuse the minds of the jury as to what had been said.
*290As to the other points discussed, the court refers to the original opinion.
We see no good reason to reverse our former ruling, and the application is overruled.