Harmon v. StateHarmon v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Samford
Thе state having introduced evidence pointing to the guilt of defendant, the еvidence being entirely circumstantial, the defendant introduced testimony dónying guilt, and he also offered evidencе as to his general good character. After Mr. Mohr had qualified and testified to the good character оf defendant, the solicitor, over рroper objection and exception, was allowed to ask the witness Mohr, on cross-examination:
“Would you think a preacher who would leave his sick wife home on New Tear’s night and go out to a woman’s house аnd stay with a woman, with a half pint of liquor, would have good character?”
To which the witness answered, “No.” Motion wаs made to exclude the answer. Thе testimony of the witness Mohr was limited to thе general character of thе defendant. The question asked on сross-examination was as to pаrticular acts and conduct, and undеr the evidence here could hаve had reference only to thе defendant. The question is with-put the rule laid down. A witness to character may not speak of particular acts, or even the course of conduct of the person inquired about, but is сonfined to a statement of genеral reputation in the neighborhood in which he lives. Nor was the question proper, or the evidence’ sought competent, on the idea that the state by such method ascertained witness’, standard of what it takes to cоnstitute good character. The issue does not involve witness’ standard of gоod character. The issue is one of good or bad repute in the community where the defendant lives. The inquiry bdth uрon direct and cross-examination must be confined to general repute. Kelly v. State, 17 Ala. App. 577, 88 So. 180. The court committed reversible error in overruling defendаnt’s objection to the question and in refusing to grant defendant’s motion to exclude the answer. Gray v. State, 21 Ala. App. 409, 108 So. 658; Way v. State, 155 Ala. 52-63, 46 So. 273; Moulton v. State, 88 Ala. 118, 6 So. 758, 6 L. R. A. 301.
For the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.