Opinion
7 Div. 375.
November 1, 1955.
Appeal from the County Court, DeKalb County, W.G. Hawkins, J.
W.M. Beck, Fort Payne, for appellant.
Motion to exclude evidence of the State on ground that it was a conclusion of the witness should be sustained. Huckabee v. State, 34 Ala. App. 288, 39 So.2d 43. Witness not properly qualified may not testify that defendant was intoxicated. Grimes v. State, 22 Ala. App. 84, 112 So. 461; Id., 22 Ala. App. 671, 112 So. 922. Statement of witness that he knew defendant was drunk was a mere conclusion. Code 1940, Tit. 14, § 120; Huckabee v. State, supra.
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Robt. Straub, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Where it is proper to permit non-expert opinion evidence, as in the case of intoxication, the witness may state his opinion without first detailing the facts on which he bases such opinion, where the matter testified about is not of a complex nature. Gladden v. State, 36 Ala. App. 197, 54 So.2d 607 certiorari denied 256 Ala. 368, 54 So.2d 610; Pate v. State, 35 Ala. App. 586, 50 So.2d 796; Gills v. State, 35 Ala. App. 119, 45 So.2d 44; certiorari denied 253 Ala. 283, 45 So.2d 51; Pierson v. State, 31 Ala. App. 452, 18 So.2d 578; certiorari denied 245 Ala. 683, 18 So.2d 580; Ballard v. State, 25 Ala. App. 457, 148 So. 752; Hargrove v. State, 22 Ala. App. 67, 111 So. 587; Dozier v. State, 130 Ala. 57, 30 So. 396; Davis v. State, 27 Ala. App. 551, 176 So. 379; Id., 234 Ala. 625, 176 So. 382.
This appeal is from appellant's conviction on a charge of driving while intoxicated. Trial was had before the Honorable W.G. Hawkins, Judge of the DeKalb County Court, without a jury. The court found the appellant guilty and assessed his fine at $100.00.
Appellant was arrested, by the Sheriff of DeKalb County and one deputy, while operating an automobile on a public road in DeKalb County on 27 January 1955.
Testimony by the two law enforcement officers tended to show that at the time of the arrest the appellant was "staggering" and drunk.
At the conclusion of the State's evidence, appellant made a motion to exclude the State's evidence, which was denied.
The appellant did not take the stand, nor did any witnesses in his behalf.
Appellant insists that the motion to exclude the evidence of the State should have been granted because the State's evidence was illegal evidence.
The sheriff and his deputy testified, over the appellant's timely objection, that the appellant was drunk at the time the arrest was made. The objection was overruled and exception taken to the court's ruling. No error resulted from this ruling. A witness who knows may testify that a certain person is drinking or drunk. Pierson v. State, 31 Ala. App. 452, 18 So.2d 578; Dozier v. State, 130 Ala. 57, 30 So. 396; Wallace v. State, 16 Ala. App. 451, 78 So. 714; Hargrove v. State, 22 Ala. App. 67, 111 So. 587; Ballard v. State, 25 Ala. App. 457, 148 So. 752; May v. State, 167 Ala. 36, 52 So. 602.
No reversible error appears in any ruling of the court upon this trial. The record is regular, and the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed in all things.
Affirmed.