In response to this question Ricky Sparks gave the names of four people who he said had told him about threats. The testimony of Ricky Sparks that four people told him about threats made by appellant was hearsay and was not admissible. Riley v. State, 26 Ala. App. 203, 206, 155 So. 882 (1934); Biggs v. State, 20 Ala. App. 449, 103 So. 706 (1924); Hill v. State, 394 So.2d 106 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981); Stokes v. State, 17 Ala. App. 27, 81 So. 363 (1919). It is true that two of these four people, Rhonda Sparks and Cheryl Jones, took the stand and testified that the appellant made threats against Ricky Sparks in their presence.
What was said to the witness by others in defendant's absence was hearsay, and should have been excluded. Riley v. State, 26 Ala. App. 203, 155 So. 882; Hamlett v. State, 19 Ala. App. 218, 96 So. 371; Brewer v. State, 23 Ala. App. 116, 121 So. 689. Over objection of defendant this witness, on re-direct examination, was allowed to state that he believed someone who thought his son had informed the officers of the whiskey still had sent the defendant to get deceased so he could kill him.
The indictment was drawn in single count and follows the current code form, No. 84 of Title 15, Sec. 259, Code 1940. It was sufficient as against the demurrers interposed. Riley v. State, 26 Ala. App. 203, 155 So. 882; Bradford v. State, 134 Ala. 141, 32 So. 742. The husband of the accused was indicted and tried for murder.
The counts were subject to be suppressed. 21 R.C.L. 259; Code, ยง 5159; Williams v. State, 68 Ala. 551; McDaniel v. State, 13 Ala. App. 318, 69 So. 351. Extrinsic matter on its face coupled with other narrative averments of fact make the counts subject to demurrer. Winchester v. State, 20 Ala. App. 431, 102 So. 595; Riley v. State, 26 Ala. App. 203, 155 So. 882. Under Count 1, defendant could not be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness. McDaniel v. State, supra; Williams v. State, supra. It was error to admit in evidence incidents of the main trial, and such evidence was of such nature that its prejudicial effect could not be eradicated by the words of the trial court.