Thompson v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. Tillman v. State

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

    It is improper on cross-examination of a character witness, to inquire what the effect on the opinion of the witness would be if he had known certain alleged acts of bad character on the part of the defendant. Gaugh v. Commonwealth, 261 Ky. 91, 87 S.W.2d 94; Thompson v. State, 39 Ala. App. 569, 105 So.2d 146; Mullins v. State, 31 Ala. App. 571, 19 So.2d 845. It is improper cross-examination of a character witness who has testified in behalf of the accused to be questioned about suggested independent facts relating to previous difficulties between the accused and deceased which does not shed weight or credibility on the witness and can only inflame and prejudice the jury against the accused. Moulton v. State, 88 Ala. 116, 6 So. 758; Echols v. State, 256 Ala. 389, 55 So.2d 530; Bodine v. State, 18 Ala. App. 514, 93 So. 264. It is error to allow the State to attempt to discredit the credibility of the character witness for the accused by proving the existence of specific acts of alleged bad character of which the witness has denied knowledge.

  2. Hooper v. State

    523 So. 2d 469 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988)   Cited 4 times

    These cases, and numerous others, unequivocally assert that a character witness's personal definition of 'good reputation' is immaterial. See Thompson v. State, 39 Ala. App. 569, 105 So.2d 146 (1958) and Wright v. State, 32 Ala. App. 169, 23 So.2d 517, cert. denied, 247 Ala. 180, 23 So.2d 519 (1945), for other examples of this type proper question." Houston v. State, 50 Ala. App. at 540-41, 280 So.2d at 800-01. "

  3. Packer v. State

    312 So. 2d 601 (Ala. Crim. App. 1975)   Cited 6 times

    " The question was not answered so even if the question called for inadmissible evidence, which we do not assume, the ruling overruling the objection was harmless. Embrey v. State, 283 Ala. 110, 214 So.2d 567; Thompson v. State, 39 Ala. App. 569, 105 So.2d 146. The indictment charged the appellant with the larceny of three dresses which belonged to Mrs. Hall. Those dresses were found in the automobile in which appellant was riding at the time it was stopped.

  4. Sexton v. State

    312 So. 2d 71 (Ala. Crim. App. 1975)   Cited 2 times

    Other questions of similar import were cited in the Mullins opinion, supra, which had been held to constitute reversible error. In the case of Thompson v. State, 39 Ala. App. 569, 105 So.2d 146, the following question was held to be improper and properly excluded: ". . . 'If you know he spent his time in the neighborhood and visited and consorted with colored people would you still say he was a man of good reputation?

  5. Houston v. State

    280 So. 2d 797 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 12 times
    In Houston v. State, 50 Ala. App. 536, 280 So.2d 797 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 291 Ala. 784, 280 So.2d 801 (Ala. 1973), during the cross-examination of a defense character witness, the State asked, "[H]ad you heard all the things I had asked that you had not heard, would you still be of the opinion Thomas Jefferson Houston was still a man of good reputation?

    These cases, and numerous others, unequivocally assert that a character witness's personal definition of "good reputation" is immaterial. See Thompson v. State, 39 Ala. App. 569, 105 So.2d 146, and Wright v. State, 32 Ala. App. 169, 23 So.2d 517, cert. denied 247 Ala. 180, 23 So.2d 519, for other examples of this type improper question. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is due to be reversed and the cause remanded for new trial.

  6. Fuller v. State

    226 So. 2d 677 (Ala. Crim. App. 1969)   Cited 5 times

    It is not needful to analyze this situation because the witness never answered the first question above quoted. Without an objection having been put to the restated question, we have no ruling of the trial judge for us to pass upon. Thompson v. State, 39 Ala. App. 569, 105 So.2d 146; Ellis v. State, 39 Ala. App. 325, 100 So.2d 725; Baldwin v. State, 282 Ala. 653, 213 So.2d 819. II

  7. Mitchell v. State

    191 So. 2d 385 (Ala. Crim. App. 1966)   Cited 16 times

    If relevant, a photograph is not inadmissible merely because it can inflame. Wilson v. State, 31 Ala. App. 21, 11 So.2d 563; Thompson v. State, 39 Ala. App. 569, 105 So.2d 146; May v. State, 42 Ala. App. 401, 166 So.2d 860; Grissett v. State, 241 Ala. 343, 2 So.2d 399; Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145, 176 So.2d 240. Where a photograph portrays both that which is relevant and that which is not, the boundary of admissibility is marked by the probable prejudice from viewing the irrelevant.

  8. White v. State

    123 So. 2d 179 (Ala. Crim. App. 1960)   Cited 20 times

    An improper question is rendered harmless by a negative answer of the witness. Dixon v. State, 38 Ala. App. 395, 85 So.2d 156; Jackson v. State, 38 Ala. App. 522, 93 So.2d 804; Id., 265 Ala. 690, 93 So.2d 808. Ordinarily, improper questions which are not answered are harmless. Wood v. State, 37 Ala. App. 673, 75 So.2d 489; Id., 261 Ala. 701, 75 So.2d 492; Thompson v. State, 39 Ala. App. 569, 105 So.2d 146. It is permissible to cross-examine a character witness to determine if he has heard of unworthy acts committed by the accused, for the purpose of throwing light on the credibility of the witness and his competency to measure reputation. Jackson v. State, supra; Johnson v. State, 34 Ala. App. 623, 43 So.2d 424; Id., 253 Ala. 194, 43 So.2d 431; Echols v. State, 36 Ala. App. 302, 55 So.2d 522; Id., 256 Ala. 389, 55 So.2d 530. Trial judge has duty to charge the law as it has been declared by appellate courts and to give construction to statutes in accordance with such opinions.