Court Opinion

ID: 9825005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:53:23.982672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:19.734342
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[7] If as a matter of fact the defendant could show that the state’s witness Philips first charged another other than the defendant with the commission of the offense, and when he found that the party first accused was not at the hotel on the night of the alleged purchase by him of the whisky, that he then charged the defendant as the guilty party, we are convinced that he should have been allowed to show these facts. The trial court refused to allow appellant to make this proof. Philips was the only witness for the state, and if the defendant had been allowed to make the above proof it was competent to go to the jury, to be considered by them, in determining the identity of the guilty party, and in determining what credibility should he given to the witness Philips. If proven, those facts would have tended to bear out the defendant’s contention that he was not the guilty party. We are fully convinced that the judgment of affirmance on this account should be set aside, and that the defendant’s application for rehearing should be granted.
Application for rehearing granted, judgment of affirmance set aside, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.