Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

63 Ala. 199

Stewart v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1879

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1879-12-15

From the Circuit Court of Bullock. Tried before the Hon. H. D. Clayton. The defendant in this case was indicted, jointly with one James Williams, for breaking into and entering the dwelling-house of Spelmau L. Latham, with intent to steal. The defendant, being on trial alone, pleaded not guilty; and issue was joined on that plea.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“As a general rule, one charged with crime can not make evidence for himself, by proof of his own declarations.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 536 So. 2d 169 - Williams v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2011

13 state decisions

60187918801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

STONE, J.

¶1As a general rule, one charged with crime can not make evidence for himself, by proof of his own declarations. There are exceptions to this rule; such, for instance, as words which are themselves a part of an act, and thus tend to explain it. These are admitted as a part of the res gestae. The question in this case, which the witness was not allowed to answer, was very general in its ■ terms. Almost anything the accused may have said, tending to show why he came, or where he was when the pistol was fired and heard by him, or what information he had received which induced him to come, or for what purpose he came, would have been responsive to it. The Circuit Court was not informed what was expected to be proved by this witness ; nor can we know whether the answer would have been legal evidence or not. If we were to reverse, and send the case back for another trial, it is not shown that the answer of the witness, when given, would not be illegal evidence. The record fails to show that the Circuit Court excluded legal evidence,' and, therefore, it fails to show that error was committed. Error is never presumed, but must be shown. — Burns v. The State, 47 Ala. 870.

¶2The judgment of the Circuit Gqurt is, affirmed.

/63/ala/199 · .json · Public domain