Davis v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Robinson v. Morrison

    133 So. 2d 230 (Ala. 1961)   Cited 26 times

    Appellant next contends that the court committed reversible error in its ruling that a highway patrolman could give his opinion as to the point of collision. Although this may not have been a subject requiring the testimony of an expert, and although there was not very much on which to base an opinion, it is well established in Alabama that it is not reversible error to permit a witness to state his conclusions or opinions when he had first detailed all the facts upon which they are based. Louisville N. R. Co. v. Williams, 183 Ala. 138, 62 So. 679; Haas Bros. v. Craft, 9 Ala. App. 404, 64 So. 163; Davis v. State, 35 Ala. App. 312, 46 So.2d 242; Huffstutler v. Edge, 35 Ala. App. 276, 47 So.2d 191; Resolute Fire Ins. Co. v. O'Rear, 35 Ala. App. 398, 47 So.2d 425. The principle is applicable in the instant case. Appellant next contends the court was in error in sustaining objections to questions propounded to witness Perry concerning the visibility of certain mailboxes from a point 1,019 feet up the highway from them.

  2. Chadwick v. State

    258 So. 2d 62 (Ala. Crim. App. 1972)   Cited 4 times

    William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Bernard F. Sykes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. Evidence must be relevant to the matters in issue to be admissible and the rule permitting explanation of evidence previously introduced is not applicable when the evidence is irrelevant. Pressley v. State, 18 Ala. App. 40, 88 So. 291; Denison v. State, 17 Ala. App. 674, 88 So. 211; Browning v. State, 31 Ala. App. 137, 13 So.2d 54; Peyton v. State, 40 Ala. App. 556, 120 So.2d 415; Davis v. State, 35 Ala. App. 312, 46 So.2d 242; Dorsey v. State, 110 Ala. 38, 20 So. 450; Fowler v. State, 170 Ala. 65, 54 So. 115. It does not violate one's Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent to charge to the jury that unexplained possession of recently stolen property is a matter or circumstance from which the jury may infer the guilt of defendant. Young v. State, Fla., 217 So.2d 567; Id. 396 U.S. 853, 24 L.Ed.2d 101, 90 S.Ct. 112; Shaw v. State, Fla.App., 209 So.2d 477.

  3. Peyton v. State

    40 Ala. App. 556 (Ala. Crim. App. 1960)   Cited 19 times
    In Peyton v. State, 40 Ala. App. 556, 120 So.2d 415, the court stated that a defendant may be examined only as to his prior convictions of crimes involving moral turpitude.

    Thus the rule permitting explanation of acts or transactions first brought in by an adversary cannot be deemed to apply. As aptly stated by the late Presiding Judge Carr in Davis v. State, 35 Ala. App. 312, 46 So.2d 242, 244: "The rule to which reference is made relates to explanation of specific matters which have been gone into by the opposing litigant.

  4. Tucker v. State

    36 Ala. App. 311 (Ala. Crim. App. 1951)   Cited 14 times

    The ground of the objection did not pose this vice. Key v. State, 8 Ala. App. 2, 62 So. 335; Davis v. State, 35 Ala. App. 312, 46 So.2d 242; Bufford v. Little, 159 Ala. 300, 48 So. 697. After a State's witness had been interrogated on direct, cross, redirect and recross-examination, appellant's counsel made a motion to exclude all of the testimony of the witness.

  5. Upton v. State

    52 So. 2d 820 (Ala. Crim. App. 1951)   Cited 2 times

    Counsel imposed only the general grounds in support of the objection. Davis v. State, 35 Ala. App. 312, 46 So.2d 242. This aside, we do not see how under the undisputed evidence in the case the negative reply to this question could have in any manner been harmful to the rights of the appellant.