Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

200 Ala. 19

75 So 331

Gray v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 19, 1917

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1917-04-19

<p>1. Witnesses <&wkey;340(3) — Impeachment — Want oe Chastity.</p> <p>A witness in a prosecution for murder could not be impeached by showing her lack of chastity, although she was subject to impeachment in the proper manner.'</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. § 1121.]</p> <p>2. Witnesses <&wkey;374(l) — Impeachment — Bias.</p> <p>Witness’ relations with deceased, shown by extrajudicial statements of a third person, were inadmissible, in a prosecution for murder, to, show bias against defendant.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. § 1201.]</p> <p>3. Witnesses <&wkey;248(2) — Exclusion, oe Ir-responsive Answer.</p> <p>Witness; statement, in answer to question as to reputation of deceased for peace and quiet, in prosecution for murder, that he had arrested deceased several times, was properly excluded, as being unresponsive to the question.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. § 862.]</p> <p><g^>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes</p>

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 1936

19 state decisions

Relies on Swint v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1917-04-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SAYRE, J.

¶1 Appellant was convicted of murder.

¶2 [1, 2] Mattie Walker testified for the state. She was subject to impeachment in a proper way; but her lack of chastity could not be singled out for that purpose. Swint v. State, 154 Ala. 46, 45 South. 901. Nor could her relations with the deceased, if that was relied upon to show bias against defendant, be shown by the extrajudicial statements of a third person.

¶3 [3] Appellant seems to complain that he was not allowed to have the testimony of the witness Teal as to the reputation of deceased for peace and quiet. Appellant had just that, as the record shows. It is true that the .witness, when first interrogated as to the reputation of deceased, said that he — witness *20 was an officer — hacl arrested deceased two or three times; but this answer was not responsive to the question, was incompetent (Swint v. State, supra), and was properly excluded on the state’s motion. Afterwards the witness answered appellant’s question in a proper way.

¶4 Learned counsel do not seriously argue the proposition that there was any error in the admission of the dying declaration of the deceased. Proof of the .declaration was properly admitted.

¶5 Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. X, and McCLELLAN and GARDNER, JX, concur.
/200/ala/19 · .json · Public domain