From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Windham v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jun 6, 1929
122 So. 805 (Ala. 1929)

Opinion

4 Div. 423.

June 6, 1929.

Eugene Ballard, of Montgomery, for petitioners.

The evidence of the witness Tate should not have been refused. 22 C. J. 213.

Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.


If the following utterance in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, "The witness Tate, stating that he did not know of the 'raid' of his own personal knowledge, could not, of course, testify that he saw appellant Windham at a named place on the day the 'raid' was made," be construed as holding that personal knowledge on the part of the witness of the time and place of the raid, was the only predicate upon which the witness might give testimony tending to show that the defendant was not present at the place of the raid at the time it was made, then it is unsound and is disapproved.

However, in the absence of a statement of the facts in the opinion of the court, we are not able to affirm on this hearing that the ruling of the trial court excluded evidence material to such defense.

Writ denied.

All the Justices concur.


Summaries of

Windham v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jun 6, 1929
122 So. 805 (Ala. 1929)
Case details for

Windham v. State

Case Details

Full title:WINDHAM et al. v. STATE

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Jun 6, 1929

Citations

122 So. 805 (Ala. 1929)
122 So. 805

Citing Cases

Windham v. State

John Windham and George Pridgen were convicted of possessing a still, and they appeal. Affirmed. Certiorari…

Early v. State

turned was not the only predicate on which he might be required to testify as to its condition after this…