Gissendanner v. State, 89 So. 835

SAMFORD, J.

On the trial of the case the wife of the deceased, over the timely ‍​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‍objection of defendant, was permitted to testify that shortly before bis death deceased had said “Bricie [meaning defendant] had robbed him.” This testimony was not admissible for two reasons: ‍​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‍First, no predicate had been laid for a dying declaration; Second, the statement was a conclusion. Pilcher v. State, 16 Ala. App. 237, 77 South. 75; Pressley v. State, 166 Ala. 17, 52 South. ‍​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‍337; Reaves v. State, 158 Ala. 5, 48 South. 373; Oliver v. State, 17 Ala. 587; Autrey v. State, 190 Ala. 10, 67 South. 237. Further, this evidence is not shown to be material.

The ‍​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‍only effect of this evidence was to prejudice the defendant’s case in the minds of the jury.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is-remanded.

Reversed ‍​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‍and remanded.

¡g^oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

Case Details

Case Name: Gissendanner v. State

Court Name: Alabama Court of Appeals

Date Published: Jun 21, 1921

Citations: 89 So. 835; 18 Ala. App. 199; 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 167; 4 Div. 667.

Docket Number: 4 Div. 667.

Court Abbreviation: Ala. Ct. App.