Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 Ala. App. 269

97 So 111

Gotcher v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided June 12, 1923

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1923-06-12

Relies on 15 Ala. App. 245 - Mathis v. State · McKee v. State · Dumas v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1923-06-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 1954

11 state decisions

501923193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*270 BRICKEN, P. X

¶1 Under an indictment charging the defendant with murder in the first degree, he was convicted of the offense of murder in the second degree and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment in the" penitentiary.

¶2 No brief has been filed in behalf of appellant, but on examination of the questions reserved by exceptions we find that the court committed reversible error in permitting state witness Dr. W. J. Calloway to testify over the objection of defendant to his opinion as to the relative positions of deceased and defendant at the time the fatal shots were fired. This is never permissible. Rigell v. State, S Ala. App. 46. 62 South. .977. This was clearly invasive of the province of the jury and a matter of which they would be quite as competent to judge as would this witness, the jury having been given a description of the wounds. In Rigell’s Case, supra, this court said:

“According to the overwhelming weight of authority, the opinions of medical experts are not admissible to show the position of an injured person at the time the wound was received, or the position of the person who inflicted it, because, as 'has been said, surgeons are not presumed to be experts in the matter of giving or receiving wounds, and the jury are equally capable of drawing proper inferences from the facts proved.”

¶3 See, also McKee v. State. 82 Ala. 32, 2 South. 451: Dumas v. State, 159 Ala. 44, 49 South. 224, 183 Am. St. Rep. 17; Roden v. State, 13 Ala. App. 105. 69 South. 366; Noble v. State, 14 Ala. App. 9, 70 South. 187; Mathis v. State, 15 Ala. App. 245, 73 South. 122.

¶4 Refused charge AA was an argument; therefore it was properly refused.

¶5 Charge R was refused to defendant without error. Koch v. State, 115 Ala. 99, 22 South. 471.

¶6 The motion for new trial is not in the bill of exceptions, but appears in the record only. It is therefore not properly presented for review. Acts 1915. p. 722.

¶7 Other questions raised upon this trial need not be considered.

¶8 The record proper Is without error, but for the error designated the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded.

¶9 Reversed and remanded.

/19/alaapp/269 · .json · Public domain