Woods v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Marcum v State

    39 Ala. App. 616 (Ala. Crim. App. 1958)   Cited 11 times

    While a party when taken by surprise may inquire of his own witness whether at a prior time witness made a statement inconsistent with or contradictory of witness' testimony at trial, for purpose of refreshing witness' memory or to justify putting him on the stand, no party has a right to impeach his own witness. Woods v. State, 38 Ala. App. 582, 90 So.2d 92; Id., 37 Ala. App. 668, 74 So.2d 535; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Scott, 232 Ala. 284, 167 So. 572; Hemingway v. Garth, 51 Ala. 530; White v. State, 87 Ala. 24, 5 So. 829; Largin v. State, 20 Ala. App. 610, 104 So. 556. A party may not for avowed purpose of impeaching his own witness prove contradictory statements previously made by witness. Gandy v. State, 81 Ala. 68, 1 So. 35; Woods v. State, supra; Alabama Power Co. v. Hall, 212 Ala. 638, 103 So. 867; Wesson v. State, 238 Ala. 399, 191 So. 249; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 769, p. 1312; Barber v. State, 23 Ala. App. 584, 129 So. 492.

  2. Hudson v. State

    267 So. 2d 494 (Ala. Crim. App. 1972)   Cited 6 times

    A party who has been genuinely taken by surprise by the testimony of his own witness may interpose questions to the witness as to her previous statements which are inconsistent with her present testimony. Strickland v. State, 269 Ala. 573, 114 So.2d 407; Hackman v. State, 41 Ala. App. 642, 148 So.2d 253; Woods v. State, 38 Ala. App. 582, 90 So.2d 92; Ruffin v. State, 30 Ala. App. 344, 6 So.2d 455. TYSON, judge.

  3. Sanders v. State

    48 Ala. App. 589 (Ala. Crim. App. 1972)   Cited 7 times
    In Sanders v. State, 48 Ala. App. 589, 266 So.2d 797 (1972), the indictment charged the robbery of "`Five Dollars of the lawful currency of the United States of America, a more particular description of which is to the Grand Jury otherwise unknown'".

    A party has no right to impeach its own witness; but when such party is taken by surprise and denotes surprise, he may interpose questions to the witness as to his previous statements which are inconsistent with his present testimony. Woods v. State, 38 Ala. App. 582, 90 So.2d 92. A witness cannot testify as to what he "thought" or "understood" another person was doing since it is violative of the opinion rule as being no more than an attempt to interpret the intent or purpose of another person. Stewart v. State, 27 Ala. 315, 172 So. 675; Prince v. State, 215 Ala. 276, 110 So. 407; Deloney v. State, 225 Ala. 65, 142 So. 432; Cox v. State, 280 Ala. 318, 193 So.2d 759; Hembree v. State, 20 Ala. App. 181, 101 So. 221; White v. State, 136 Ala. 58, 34 So. 177; Robinson v. City of Sylacauga, 37 Ala. App. 565, 72 So.2d 125; Daniell v. State, 37 Ala. App. 559, 73 So.2d 370; Faircloth v. State, 44 Ala. App. 295, 208 So.2d 66; Stewart v. Commonwealth, 235 Ky. 670, 32 S.W.2d 29; Witty v. State, 203 S.W.2d 212; Collier v. State, 253 P.2d 568; Grimes v. State, 365 P.2d 739; People v. Pearson, 244 P.2d 35; Hendrix v. State, 90 A.2d 186. The general rule in Alabama is that evidence of distinct and independent offenses is not admissible in the trial of a person accused of a

  4. Abernathy v. State

    155 So. 2d 586 (Ala. Crim. App. 1962)   Cited 22 times

    There was no error in the court's refusal to allow the defendant to cross-examine General Graham, or in refusing to allow the introduction of a transcript of his testimony in a previous case in another court. A party cannot impeach or discredit his own witness by introducing proof of prior inconsistent statements. Woods v. State, 38 Ala. App. 582, 90 So.2d 92; Ruffin v. State, 30 Ala. App. 344, 6 So.2d 455; Duncan v. State, 20 Ala. App. 209, 101 So. 472. "An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons, (Our statute has reduced the minimum number of participants to two.)

  5. Bullard v. Williams

    133 So. 2d 681 (Ala. Crim. App. 1961)   Cited 1 times

    The law is well settled that a party has no right to impeach his own witness, but when he is taken by surprise and denotes such surprise, he may interpose questions to the witness as to his previous statements which are inconsistent with his present testimony. Woods v. State, 37 Ala. App. 668, 74 So.2d 535; Ray v. State, 29 Ala. App. 382, 197 So. 70; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Scott, 232 Ala. 284, 167 So. 572; Woods v. State, 38 Ala. App. 582, 90 So.2d 92; McMillian v. State, 268 Ala. 363, 106 So.2d 244. We find no error prejudicial to defendant in the court's ruling here.

  6. Woods v. State

    104 So. 2d 760 (Ala. Crim. App. 1958)   Cited 1 times

    In the second trial, in which Darrel Woods had testified, this court held that objections to certain questions were improperly overruled, and constituted reversible error. See Woods v. State, 38 Ala. App. 582, 90 So.2d 92. Preceding the introduction of the testimony of Darrel Woods taken at the second trial, the Solicitor informed the court that he wished to introduce all of the direct testimony of Darrel Woods, except that portion that had been held illegal by this court.