Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

82 Ala. 63

Owensby v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1886

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1886-12-15

From the Circuit Court of Randolph. Tried before the Hon. James W. Lapsley.

Relies on Smith v. State · Snow v. State · West v. State

Cited in Anderson (1889)’s definition of “Wear And Tear”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1939

14 state decisions

60188618901900191019201930decided

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 →

CLOPTON, J.

¶1— It is competent for the defendant to show by any legal evidence, that another committed the offense with which he is charged, and that he is free from participation in its commission; but it is well settled, that this can not be shown by the admissions or confessions of a third person, not under oath, such being mere hearsay. Wes v. State, 76 Ala. 98; Snow v. State, 58 Ala. 372. It is also said, that hearsay is not confined, in the legal sense, to what is said; that acts or conduct, as well as words, may be hearsay. — 1 Whar. on Ev. § 173. Plight on being accused of crime, excitement, and the exhibition of similar emotions, may be regarded in the nature of admissions, because arising from a consciousness of guilt; but, as they may naturally be produced, in some persons, by causes other than a sense of guilt, they are considered of the least probative force of all competent testimony; certainly not equal to a voluntary and deliberate declaration or confession. They are circumstances too uncertain and illusory to be reliable or admissible to prove the innocence of the accused, by showing the guilt of a third person. They are within the *65reason and policy of the rule, which excludes the admissions or confessions of such other person . — Smith v. State, 9 Ala. 990.

¶2The Circuit Court did not err in excluding the evidence of the excited appearance and flight of Moreman.

¶3Affirmed.

/82/ala/63 · .json · Public domain