Graham v. StateGraham v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Simpson
— The appellant was convicted of thе crime of robbery. Thеre was no error in overruling the *41objectiоn to tbe question put by tbе state to tbe witness Bаiley, “What was tbe condition of tbe ground?” and to tbe answer theretо. In addition to tbe faсt that no grounds of objection were statеd, tbe witness bad testified that be went to tbe place where Milligan was said to have been robbed; and, if tbe defеndant doubted bis knowledgе of tbe place, be bad tbe opрortunity to test bis knowledgе by cross-examination. Tbe witness testified that be went there tbe morning аfter tbe supposed robbery.
Tbe defendаnt bad examined witnesses as to contradictory statements made by tbe witness Milligan, for the рurpose of impеaching him. This openеd tbe door for tbe stаte to sustain said witness by рroof as to bis genеral character. — Holley v. State, 105 Ala. 100, 17 South. 102.
Tbe court also properly overruled tbe objectiоn to that part of tbе oral charge in relation to an alibi. It was fully explained to tbе jury that they alone Avere to consider and decide tbe questiоn as to tbe alibi; and wе do not discover in tbe charge any intimation by tbe court as to its opinion on that subject.
Tbe judgment of tbe court is affirmed.
Tyson, C. J., and Haralson and Denson, JJ., concur.