" Murphy v. State, 25 Ala. App. 237, 239, 144 So. 114, 116 (1932). Equally important, the parties were given no opportunity to subject each other to cross-examination.
When a witness reaffirms testimony he gave before he was sworn, such testimony becomes competent. Murphy v. State, 25 Ala. App. 237, 144 So. 114 (1932).Beck, 719 S.W.2d at 213 n. 5 (emphasis added).
When a witness reaffirms testimony he gave before he was sworn, such testimony becomes competent. Murphy v. State, 25 Ala. App. 237, 144 So. 114 (1932). In absence of a timely objection, unsworn testimony does not constitute a nullity.
The requirement that a party must object to any unsworn testimony at trial is not a novel concept. See Murphy v. State, 25 Ala.App. 237, 239–40, 144 So. 114, 116–17 (1932) (“wherever it appears that a witness is not so sworn (or affirmed), and the party against whom the witness is offered makes timely objections, such testimony must be excluded”). Moreover, the federal courts also follow the line of reasoning that failure to object waives any issue regarding the admissibility of unsworn testimony.
The requirement that a party must object to any unsworn testimony at trial is not a novel concept. See Murphy v. State, 25 Ala. App. 237, 239-40, 144 So. 114, 116-17 (1932) ("wherever it appears that a witness is not so sworn (or affirmed), and the party against whom the witness is offered makes timely objections, such testimony must be excluded"). Moreover, the federal courts also follow the line of reasoning that failure to object waives any issue regarding the admissibility of unsworn testimony.
If a witness is allowed to give evidence before the jury without first being lawfully sworn, it is the duty of the judge, as soon as it is called to his attention, to immediately administer a proper oath to the witness. Code of Alabama, 1975, Sec. 12-21-136; Murphy v. State, 25 Ala. App. 237, 144 So. 114. We hold that the trial court did not err to the prejudice of the appellant when it denied his motion for a mistrial, swore the witness, and allowed him to repeat his former testimony.
Prior statements of a witness contrary to his sworn testimony at the trial are admissible as affecting his credibility. Murphy v. State, 25 Ala. App. 237, 144 So. 114; Phillips v. State 248 Ala. 510, 28 So.2d 542. But proof of statements made by a witness out of court is inadmissible to corroborate his testimony at the trial.
It is not error to refuse requested charges the substance of which is covered by the oral charge and other given charges. Thrasher v. State, 168 Ala. 130, 53 So. 256. The affirmative charge was properly refused, because it was a question of fact for the jury to determine whether appellant had sufficiently established his plea of self-defense. McBryde v. State, 156 Ala. 44, 47 So. 302; Jones v. State, 193 Ala. 10, 69 So. 66; Clark v. State, 216 Ala. 7, 111 So. 227; James v. State, 14 Ala. App. 652, 72 So. 299; Carlisle v. State, 22 Ala. App. 255, 114 So. 475; Riddle v. State, 25 Ala. App. 142, 142 So. 680; Id., 225 Ala. 218, 142 So. 682; Murphy v. State, 25 Ala. App. 237, 144 So. 114; Hopkins v. State, 26 Ala. App. 213, 155 So. 891. BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.