Court Opinion

ID: 9687778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:48:21.993024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:31.760145
License: Public Domain

BLOODWORTH, Justice
(concurring specially):
I would agree that the refusal to give charge 4 did not constitute reversible error, but for another reason, namely, that there was no evidence that the witness, Dixon, was of “bad character,” as the charge suggests the jury might find from the evidence. The testimony was to the effect that he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Such evidence is received solely as it might affect the witness Dixon’s “credibility as a witness.” Holloway v. State, 43 Ala.App. 153, 182 So.2d 906 (1965); Title 7, § 434, Code of Alabama 1940 ; 6A Ala. Dig., Criminal Law, @==>673(5). It is not per se evidence of his bad character. One may have bad character and never have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. On the other hand, one may have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and yet might be able to produce witnesses who would swear to his good character.
In the case of Prater v. State, 107 Ala. 26, 18 So. 238 (1894), it was held reversible error to refuse a charge identical to the charge in the instant case. However, in Prater, the witness’ bad character was proved. Thus, it was that this court held the charge should have been given. Prater is not apt authority for a reversal here.
Therefore, I conclude that the refusal of defendant’s requested charge 4 was not reversible error because the charge was “abstract” under the evidence.