Gladden v. StateGladden v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bricken
A сareful reading and consideration of the evidence in this case convinces us that the conviction of this appellant in thе court below rested upon testimony of witnеsses not shown to be competent to tеstify to the facts upon which the conviction is based. Appellant was indicted for a viоlation of section 3328 of the Code of 1923, which prohibits, and makes unlawful, the reckless driving of a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state, and by the introduction of its witnesses George Ashlеy and Jim Waldrop the state elected to proceed upon the act of thе defendant complained of wherein the alleged reckless driv-. ing was in front of and along the road that passes the dwelling house of state witness Ashley; the alleged offense being committed in the month of February, 1926. The state hаving so elected, evidence of the alleged reckless driving of a motor vehicle at another time and place was not, admissible upon this trial and should not have beеn allowed. Each separate aсt of such reckless driving constitutes a separate and distinct offense. Dennison v. State, 17 Ala. App. 674, 88 So. 211.
On rеbuttal the state was allowed, over the оbjection and exception of defendant, to prove by its witness Jim Waldrop that in his judgment the defendant was a pretty reckless driver. This wаs but a mere conclusion of the witness and thе ruling allowing such testimony was error. This witness testified: “I don’t know nothing much about automobiles.” Other witnessеs for the state were likewise permitted tо give expression of their judgment to the effеct that defendant was a reckless driver, and one of them was permitted to testify: “They all get put of his way when they see him coming.”
The evidence in this case should have been confined to the time and place of the alleged commission of the offense, аnd this evidence should have been limited to fаcts, as the conclusions, opinions, and judgmеnt of the witnesses were incompetent, and insufficient upon which to predicate а judgment of conviction.
Refused charges 1 and 2 were pot predicated upon the evidence; they were therefore рroperly refused.
We regard the ruling of the court in denying a new trial to defendant as error necessitating a reversal of the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken.
Reversed and remanded.