Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

160 Ala. 100

Storey v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided May 13, 1909

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1909-05-13

Heard before Hon. S. L. Brewer. From a conviction for assault with intent to murder Tom Storey appeals. The guilt of other parties may be shown if asked for by direct question.— Prince v. The State, 100 Ala. 144.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1941

1 state decisions

Relies on Banks v. State · Alston v. State · Beavers v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1909-05-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MAYFIELD, J.

¶1We find no reversible error in the record proper.

¶2The only exemption reserved by the bill of exceptions is to the ruling of the trial court in sustaining an objection interposed by the solicitor to the following question, propounded to a witness named Barrow: “Did you not tell Anderson Long, a short time before the shooting near your house in Lanett, Ala., that if he did not stay away from Mary’s house you would shoot him?” This is not shown to be error. The bill of exceptions and brief of counsel fail to show wherein it was a proper question, or that its answer would be relevant, or even what the answer would be. The answer would probably have tended to incriminate the witness —-which would be sufficient reason for sustaining the objection to the question, though we do not mean to intimate that it was shown that the answer would be relevant.

¶3It is insisted by counsel for appellant that the evidence sought to be elicited was competent to prove that another committed the crime for which the accused was on trial. True, proof of such fact is always admissible in criminal trials; but this question was not admissible for this purpose. — Wood v. State, 72 Ala. 522; Alston v. State, 63 Ala. 178; Berner’s Case, 103 Ala. 36, 15 South. 616.

¶4The judgment is affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Simpson and Sayre, JJ., concur.
/160/ala/100 · .json · Public domain