Court Opinion

ID: 9825205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:18:13.223917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:32.214118
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[15] In the opinion written to an affirmance of the judgment of conviction in this case, we stated in reference to the argument of the solicitor, to which objection was made and exception taken, that neither the argument of the solicitor nor that of counsel for the defendant appeared to be proper, and that counsel must be left in the attitude in which they placed themselves. Upon reconsideration of the entire record, we are satisfied that *96in this we were wrong, and that our duty in the matter is to grant the motion for a rehearing.
On the trial of the case the solicitor was permitted, over the timely objections and exceptions of the defendant, to ask many questions as to the present whereabouts of the three small children of deceased, eliciting answers thereto that they were in state institutions and being cared for by the state, and with this testimony as a predicate the solicitor in argument stated to the jury, “The state of Alabama is now taking care of them” and they are “being cared for by the taxpayers.”
The objections and exceptions to the remarks of the solicitor are hardly full or specific enough upon which to base exceptions, but they serve to illustrate the prejudicial nature of the testimony relative to the children of the deceased at the time of the trial. The testimony above referred to was all immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in the case. The fact that the widow of the deceased had left the community, that one of his children was in the reform school and another in the industrial school and being cared for by the state, and this expense was being borne by the.taxpayers, could have no possible bearing on the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and might he made the basis for a highly prejudicial appeal before the jury. In fact, this record discloses a great amount of unnecessary passion in the trial of this case, and, as stated before, not entirely limited to counsel for the state.
Persons charged with crime are entitled to a fair and impartial trial before a jury composed of fair men, who will render a verdict free of all passion, upon legal evidence, as applied to the law. This result cannot always be had, where counsel, in their zeal for the cause they represent, are permitted to make impassioned appeals to the jury based upon illegal testimony, or where counsel during the examination of witnesses are allowed to propound questions eliciting responses that are immaterial and irrelevant.
[16] The questions above referred to were objected to, the grounds stated, objections overruled, and exceptions reserved. The answers to these questions were responsive, and therefore no motions to exclude the answers were necessary. Troy Lumber & Const. Co. v. Boswell, 186 Ala. 409, 65 South. 141. In so far as the opinions in Miller v. State, 16 Ala. App. 3, 74 South. 840, and Tiller v. State, 10 Ala. App. 45, 64 South. 653, are in conflict with the foregoing it is expressly .overruled. x
The application for rehearing is granted, judgment of affirmance is set aside, and the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.