Court Opinion

ID: 9825423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:55:02.931362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:47.445046
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
It is earnestly insisted in brief that the court erred in two particulars in the original opinion:
First as to the action of the trial court in limiting the examination of witnesses to prove the character of defendant. There are cases where the trial court would not be reversed for having limited the number of character witnesses to be examined to sustain the defendant’s character, but where this is the case, it is by reason of rule 45 (61 South, ix1), placing in the appellate court a power which should at all times be exercised with great caution. Such was the case of Norris v. State, 16 Ala. App. 126, 75 South. 718, in which the court, after considering the whole record, concluded that the substantial rights of the defendant had not been injured by the exclusion of the testimony of a single witness. In the case at bar, the honesty and integrity of the defendant was a vital issue, and the limit placed by the court as to proof of character may have been one of serious injury to the defendant.
Second. We note the force of the argument that any evidence tending to prove the guilt of the person who actually stole the goods, the subject of the prosecution, should be admissible in evidence, and that is true to a degree. But the guilt or innocence of another person as to these particular articles is immaterial to the issue involved in this prosecution. If the contentions of the state were true, and it were necessary to a conviction in this cáse for the state to prove that McArdle was the guilty agent, the judgment of acquittal in the ease, charging McArdle with the larceny of those goods, would appear to be relevant and pertinent. But, such is not the ease. Whether McArdle is adjudged guilty or innocent is of no moment. If in proving the original theft, McArdle appears as the guilty agent, it is a mere incident in the trial, and his acts and doings connected in any way with the thefts, prior to the consummation of the crime, are relevant. As to what he did afterwards may have been evidence against him, but cannot be used against this defendant.
We have said this much in response to the very able brief filed in support of the foregoing propositions, but, there being no application for rehearing filed, there is nothing before 'the court for consideration.

 175 Ala. xxi.