19 Ala. App. 77
95 So 54
Decided January 9, 1923
Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1923-01-09
<p>I. Witnesses &wkey;>372(2) — Evidence of amount paid by witness for special prosecuting counsel competent to show interest of witness.</p> <p>In a prosecution for using abusive, insult.ing, or obscene language in the presence or hearing of a woman, where the stepfather of prosecutrix testified that he had employed counsel to prosecute, it was error to exclude on his cross-examination answers to defendant’s question as to how much he agreed to pay counsel, which would evidence the extent of his interest in the prosecution.</p> <p>2. Obscenity <&wkey;>4, 19 — Whether request for kiss was insulting and “obscene” was jury question; “obscene” defined. .</p> <p>In a prosecution for using abusive, insulting, or obscene language in the presence of a woman, under testimony that defendant invited a girl to warm herself in his store, and then gave her a dollar, and said, “If you will let me kiss you I will buy you a pretty. ring,” the question whether the words were insulting was for the jury, and whether they were obscene depended upon their purport in this particular casé; “obscene” being something offensive to chastity; that which is offensive to chastity and modesty.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Obscene —Obscenity.]</p> <p><@=»For other eases see same topic and KEr-KUMBBR in all Key-JN umbered Digests and Indexes</p>
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“The defendant was entitled to know the extent of the witness' interest in the prosecution, as evidenced by the amount of money he was willing to pay towards the prosecution.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including 415 So. 2d 1225 - Ingle v. State
“`Something which is offensive to chastity; that which is offensive to chastity and modesty'.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including 93 So. 2d 876 - State v. Clein
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Reversed and remanded · Decided 1923-01-09
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 1982
17 state decisions
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 →
¶1
¶2
“Something which is offensive to chastity, that which is offensive to chastity and modesty.”
¶3 The affirmative charge as requested was properly refused; but for the error pointed out the judgmeht is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
¶4 Reversed and remanded.