Johnson v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. Haynes

    592 So. 2d 536 (Ala. 1991)   Cited 14 times
    In Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Haynes, 64 Miss. 604, 1 So. 765, 766, a suit was brought against the railroad for damages for delay in the delivery of cattle shipped over its lines, and the failure to water them.

    We hold that on redirect examination it was proper for Haynes to explain why he had previously made a statement contradicting his present testimony. C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 159.03(1) (1991), citing Johnson v. State, 49 Ala. App. 356, 272 So.2d 282 (1972) and Hairrell v. State, 16 Ala. App. 110, 75 So. 702 (1917). "The extent to which the impeached witness may go into the reasons why he made the prior inconsistent statement is largely within the sound discretion of the trial court."

  2. Johnson v. State

    272 So. 2d 286 (Ala. 1973)

    BLOODWORTH, Justice. Petition of the State by its Attorney General for Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Johnson v. State, 49 Ala.App. ___, 272 So.2d 282. Writ denied.

  3. McIntosh v. State

    443 So. 2d 1275 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983)   Cited 11 times

    A prior inconsistent statement may be explained by a witness. Johnson v. State, 49 Ala. App. 356, 272 So.2d 282 (1972). The victim explained that she made this statement because she was "scared."

  4. Langston v. State

    348 So. 2d 273 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)   Cited 2 times

    In so ruling, the court fell into error, we think. We held that prejudicial error was committed in a strikingly similar situation in Johnson v. State, 49 Ala. App. 356, 272 So.2d 282, cert. denied 289 Ala. 745, 272 So.2d 286, in which it was stated: "In our opinion the court erred in not allowing the appellant to answer the question propounded above.

  5. Tillman v. State

    291 So. 2d 373 (Ala. Crim. App. 1974)   Cited 6 times

    Cross-examination of an accused's character witnesses may include inquiries concerning specific acts of the accused for the purpose of testing the credibility of the witness. Mullins v. State, 31 Ala. App. 571, 19 So.2d 849; Echols v. State, 256 Ala. 387, 55 So.2d 530; Johnson v. State, 49 Ala. App. 356, 272 So.2d 282; Vaughan v. State, 201 Ala. 472, 78 So. 378. The trial court has discretion to decide, in the context of the matter at issue whether the trait or reputation evidenced by the act assumed in the question was relevant to that raised by the defense and tended to impeach the credibility of the witness. Bodine v. State, 18 Ala. App. 514, 93 So.2d 264; Houston v. State, 50 Ala. App. 536, 280 So.2d 797; Dufresne v. State, 40 Ala. App. 476, 116 So.2d 385. No prejudicial error can result to a defendant from a question put by the State when the defense's objections are upheld or when no harmful answer is actually elicited from the witness.