Opinion
3 Div. 924.
June 6, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Montgomery County, Eugene W. Carter, J.
Walters Gibson and John W. Gibson, of Troy, for appellant.
Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is admissible to impeach a witness, but this must be offered in the orderly manner provided for introduction of such evidence and when sought merely to prejudice the jury by implication or insinuation, it is highly prejudicial. Horsley v. State, 19 Ala. App. 263, 96 So. 937; Fidelity-Phoenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Murphy, 231 Ala. 680, 166 So. 604. Great Latitude is allowed on cross-examination, but error is committed when the privilege is abused. Deemer v. State, 17 Ala. App. 449, 85 So. 867; Dodd v. State, 26 Ala. App. 367, 160 So. 267; Davis v. State, 21 Ala. App. 637, 111 So. 314.
Hill, Hill, Whiting Harris, of Montgomery, for appellee.
A witness' conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude may be shown as affecting his credibility. Suttle v. State, 18 Ala. App. 411, 92 So. 531; Craven v. State, 22 Ala. App. 39, 111 So. 767; Code 1940, Tit. 7, §§ 434, 435. On appeal party cannot complain of overruling of objections to questions asked him as a witness where the answers did not disclose any fact injurious to him. Sanders v. Davis, 153 Ala. 375, 44 So. 979; Keeton v. Parker, 25 Ala. App. 236, 144 So. 119; 2 Ala.Dig. 1048 (5), page 874.
Mrs. Fred Bell Parker sued Fred E. Mullis for damages for personal injury incident to a collision between the automobile driven by her husband, and in which she was riding, and a truck driven by the defendant.
In the court below there was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
On cross examination the appellant was asked: "Have you ever been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude in the Federal Court?" The question was not then answered.
After a rather lengthy colloquy between attorneys and the trial judge, and after the latter had explained what in his opinion constituted a crime involving moral turpitude the appellant finally answered the question in the negative.
Counsel for appellant moved that the case be taken from the jury. This motion was denied, and the court stated: "I will overrule the motion, and will explain to the jury there is nothing before the jury in any way whatsoever connecting him with a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude."
This incident during the progress of the trial constitutes the basis for the only assignments of error.
Insistence is made by counsel for appellant that the attempt to impeach the witness was not made in an orderly way.
In the final analysis the negative reply and the court's explanation to the jury removed all injurious effects which may have arisen against the substantial rights of the appellant. Supreme Court Rule 45 Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix; Stephens v. State, 250 Ala. 123, 33 So.2d 245; Russell v. State, 17 Ala. App. 436, 87 So. 221; Murray v. State, 17 Ala. App. 253, 84 So. 393; Edmonds v. State, 16 Ala. App. 157, 75 So. 873; 2 Ala. Digest, Appeal Error, 1048 (5).
The judgment below is due to be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.