Pressley v. State, 88 So. 291

18 ALABAMA APPELLATE REPORTS 40 er crops error corn same Reporter; mitting one in the the fence particular answer in that lawful he 105, 43 into or affected these matters could defendant before consideration of the record (Eaton’s) Hogan, considered the entire the several ton: South. found —was Mich. looked like it circumstances and facts was to Ala. drug tions on had right ducted the trial sel with a killed and the state ground. the mark where intérest. on the “That [22, ^{[19] [18]} [20] It was Reported [16,17] shot been 10 hog. effect. destroyed by properly 65, had field, in the head.” “When. at the heard 23] The a Dig. a properly Irrespective prejudice 716. surface 840; Vandegrift fence, where the defendant hog.” some he found wounds sign. 79 area; wallowing.” 12 feet from the fence.” parted back, and the marks showed character The Moye view acts. Andrews v. inclosing in full with Moss v. p. controversies on the delicti. Patterson tendencies of time part reported questions community had Justice that show 322. allowed to state or whether stock of Eaton’s This was declaration * * * questions propounded had trouble 852. there was not confined that each solely v. it had been admitted, consequently the verdict of counsel for been no Eaton’s State, J. W. grass killing in ‘full State, to be in no defendant’s substantial crop “There was permit ground” shot as to It looked jury, incompetent the witnesses a determining whether Hogan testify where no error in not The witness so hogs, side hogs. wise have entered conflicting they on the I found the impresses drug with him. the witness tended to Alabama acted and the witness growing the amount error, these stuff there was hog. as to whether injury v. a load controversies the value as to knew rights Eaton outside.” App. law like the field was the Southern Besides signs side “There proved State, 202 hog.” “It defendant had jury. 4 Reports. us existed careful wheth conten 127, of shot out Huey, Eaton hog coun lived have that, per Ala. con His Ea hog he 40 67 to of “I tery.] foundation witnesses who heard it. assault, 2. porter which is the least that, mony ing that objections reputation material mony. These by and certain ing ter of Hill v. 113 character v. Waggoner, of the defendant’s 1. the committed made Grady then tain Eaton, (Court making, defendant South. timony [Ed. in ordinarily heard There Affirmed. ^[25] [24] There Criminal Perjury Notwithstanding stenographic report state could testified that Ala. same exclusive source Phrases, prosecution in a named times had Note.—Eor other Rehearing There was no shall Thompson, questions the witness State, in such relating oath in 941, thé state, it. Yerdo judgment Hill prosecution in is 622, 21 this was matters, prosecution him Appeals as the for a witness for the a for to the t&wkey;l in the no relative objection and witnesses parties 2 right proved supra; v. First and truth and and, reversible error to the witnesses anger, Norris, A. impeach treated as 1(2) Only to the commission of the act court, <&wkey;547(3)Alleged a court of Thompson was relating notes of the official for assault South. 328. predicate, State, put Denied questions they which the defendant community of Alabama. and touching L. is affirmed. STATE. proved one of the to show his some trial court the answers Acts were Eaton. to the witnesses to certain statements of evidence So. R. 509. error in relative to the would not believe S. definitions, the oral the defendant’s to commission Feb. places Second veracity. Ry. P. placed always motion to material propounded — state, and no justice, Waggoner v.Co. 1, 1921.) where defendant another perjury. witnesses overruling the ways p. Div. Jan. were general substantially committed at on (88 South. Series, “battery” includes false testi- can be the had thereof, 11, see Words overruling error was “battery,” P. Williams, the stand Redmond 672.) 181. language court re- he whereby exclude. charac proper. provid- 21, Eaton, denied Eaton, to the is not lived, as to R. 1921. testi state Bat- rule, good hav him tes- bad cer act. 291) an so 69 B. in all same KBY-NUMBBR other eases see Indexes <SS=sFor 3. fined more tect accused Ala. the 4. as well matters As material. and hence the court erred in es of which dictment. jection timony testimony Court citation of tion supra, by circumstances. ty; timony contents to be shown The .court charge. tives of 1915, p. 859. Under by present or tends to a whole. 15 Kilpatrick, 5. been committed at assault day corroborate ty, Asst. sistent with confined orated. lished inconsistent corroboration. Any The official Appeal Arthur F. Criminal Perjury Perjury the to what The rule In a In testimony defendant, 34; O. Q. E. St. the affirmative strictly The oral Atty. Gen., was party evidence is at the sustain a as by prosecution appeals. Smith, Atty. the Kyle, Judge. prosecution 68 193 Ala. 678. from Circuit Pressjey of one witness to more <&wkey;34( &wkey;>34(6) testimony properly law its authority. contradicted John, Ala. 551. party he was enforced point that assaulted, amade necessary must time civil Ala. 68 South. report oral Hartsells, On should &wkey;338(I) approval than one being conviction for for the I) Falsity in issue Reversed and remanded. the evidence must and assaulted that in issue. cases, Rehearing. where the App. previous bo established S02. for admissible, not informed of one Cullman, charge, —Evidence refused the statement Gen., was the best fact required must perjury, alleged place, Counsel Court, have but without perjury, convicted criminal oral only by by way strongly 348; and see the case cited State. applies —Evidence is not sufficient any event, and Lamar was corroborated trial of others held testimony. evidence alleged 678; 79 South. appellant. 72 South. 773. as a should Cullman Coun- with the offense of assault came too of declarations permitting perjury. to them incon- considered as three assaulted discuss the of corrobora- requested by the cases corroborated in itself was not meet later in the by to affirmative by given. Sample uncorrob- falsity evidence, be estab- sufficient must criminal be the by persons further the the ob- to have by proves charg- Field, (18 Ala.App.) rela- even Acts late. 141; pro- con- of par- tes- tes- the in- its be 74 & . the less than the dicted, 1907, jury, under testimony may the his examination rer not form fect separate and follows; him himself entry have been sworn to trial, examined the one sufficient. permitted lant upon of one Walter said porter, the circuit that, 62). court, over the (3) v. STATE “After the In BRICKEN, “(1) That he The bill of Notwithstanding perjury, immaterial the said the issue or demurrers shown, relation to conviction penitentiary. guilty,” been committed court therein; ¡as best corruptly false. The circuit Aubrey Oden, the matter is to that under testimony. were prescribed which and On the trial of the and it makes alleged perjury complained appellant tried, to be named Mathews and and that Oden; provided oral examination said Walter Holmes and distinct appears two this was on the state to present say, by to sustain indictment, under section etc. Code court the laws court of notes so taken it and convicted for demurrer. no mention P. exceptions nor more than three sentenced be. Code the usual measure indictment, (2) those did charge appearing beyond falsely Holmes, averred objection J. the overruled defendant’s had an Oden.” record error, that he at said as to this by the is insisted record, provisions matters based case Code, Cullman the arrest sworn to is Walter Holmes §§ defendant was prove prosecution said trial for statement, however recites (Acts 1915, p. 859), that his this However, perjury who was defendant was 7545, what reasonable defendant on said of two witnesses- indictment perjury did official court trial, controversy, did shall and is therefore upon and the minute the reason state, §§ period it follows on the trial of High find no county. that— reported 7541, the 7161 battery court, detain false such defendant,, be treated of as they irrelevant ruling the represent take years in we have case for it charged pleaded! Sheriff; offense demur- of doubt, 7543. based,, proof, appel heard (form Code must upon case,, hav- per- hold said and’ find not the act de- in- 41 re by ©sjFor otlier cases see same in all and Indexes KEY-NUMBER 18 ALABAMAAPPELLATE REPORTS The prosecution cannot be sustained. All these Aubrey do so. questions manner, without perjury; ment numbered Walter Holmes review.’ to deal tion, party, sisted Oden? rial or the above the trial of the Holmes rial to the issue or ever, find the charges requested by defendant is also in- strictly enforcing statements of the court also as to a certain during separate motions to exclude the could be rule there stated is modified.” defendant on the occasion under competent proof charge; thenticated, timony given, * * * to sion of line ity evidence. amination examination that the swore on counting dence could “The contents of the [2] As before Numerous other See, hold that there was preclude perjury case, and that authority with as it would serve when stated upon (1) any court. also, one witness Oden,” the trial of this case to the separately Ordinarily corroboration this If there are and are following expressions: App. 301, and therefore not ’ construed However we shall not undertake made were raised in and, further, this contention. Appellant’s however, alleged in facts (1) proposition; is Roman upon not be offered without first but it is therefore prima In error. (2) when the refusal trial, , battery did not take hold of parties stated, (3) this properly presented loss adduced falsely which we are constrained man’s the facts testified to with each as exceptions defendant and in is not above, wit, concretely, (2), the sole and facie evidenceof the tes- question trial of Walter Holmes transcribed we find a Harper Case, supra, These the indictment as hav- portance expressions the case of holding otherwise, that case of Todd v. counsel evidence, upon by any Lentz, stenographic upon wholly portion above set but sworn conclusive, error in order upon to every presented: Oden, to Upon contentions, offering good purpose must be shown the said for assault and therefore this specific excep- cite no were reserved gard immaterial secondary are that is later two written investigation. of the oral plies well controversy. the trial conceivable in Todd v. further ex subject out, this “that said Keeping absolutely numbered jury Harper sustain a any report is mate here for and does holds in the said duly witness, Aubrey charged several author rulings expres ruling mate- solely state- Were under issue other how- upon hending, best evi n involvedin a the charged au- ac in of expected’ v. there upon action which forms the ment or were of sufficient predicate tery on the which was of sufficient justify only, Aubrey Oden, in without the evidence of one witness Walter Holmes did not take ed familiar must be statement numbered established Russell fact in criminal only statement contained in the indictment than in civil reasonable when tuting stances commission of the are not admissible in evidence. And this eral rule the res sions of the court, battery includes an assault. case it was rude, having slightest touching person grees mit hibits place fined character ^[3] solely in the assault an assault upon should consist to the trial It has been any corroborating proved, to be “the least Holmes the first and lowest as insolent, respect that facts and gestae, on- draw the line between different de- willfully and facts Oden.” And as with with an himto rule, manner. Another confined violence, right affidavit, to come charged? the said support corpus delicti, Crimes, in presumption material fact or permissible course, another in an cases; to criminal as to civil cases. In trial however, Did view, therefore, Case the which or an assault and to criminal that the facts laid from the or hostile manner. proceedings above numbered this cause. offense, or in materiality incapable many meddle with only immediately to a conviction this rule is even the defendant named of the assault and without Oden, and therefore prepared exclusively for where a defendant is party and that his A (3), wit, requires cannot be convicted on sacred, perjury, circumstances, which, the main facts consti corpus to battery subject materiality venue as tó time circumstances shown anger,” touching Court and of this times held that one but also the circum or.assault and bat- it would not it to record prove, innumerable deci offense. The angry, stage alone this statement it definition inquiry involved, is inference hold of one witness named, to answer. 2 upon delicti consist- and no for that evidence affording it in the fact that attending corroboration of the indict of the trans and that the has been de- in battery necessity that it totally of the said utmost (1) revengeful, “that of another before perjury issue, nor were it; every which to even stronger compre- battery is: The appear of this strong would in re Every other upon com- gen pro- any im the ap (2) STATE Ala.App.) judgment words, re- corroborating and the cause In other reversed circumstances. of- manded. this to obtain conviction jury, fense, necessary Reversed and remanded. convince required always proof measure of Rehearing. On chief, cases, that on criminal issue, the defend- in matter material to the Attorney General, on behalf of the that which ant testified to state, cause, application rehearing makes corruptly no con- false. There urges materiality of state- single viction the unaided (1) (2) ments A further referred to stated, “oath would be often witness. As examination or more be two oath.” There must this case discloses that none of the con- facts strong witnesses, only one, or, if corrob- stituting gestee the res in the Walter Holmes corroboration, be suffi- oration. And “this case, tending delicti establish corpus act, cient, very the must be of the case, by any that was sworn to of the wit- delicti, giving material the of except nesses on the trial of said case alleged the- willfully corruptly Pe- false.” which is party Aubrey Oden, Ala. 34. terson v. also that in his entire Case, supra, the In the Peterson any connection is of without corroboration (opinion Judge Stone) said: Court alleged At character. the time of the com- of of mission of the the offense the record “There no conviction crime single present except of a Oden, the unaided shows no one was against oath oath. This witness. be would Holmes, Pressley, and one Frank Maddox. witnesses, or must be two one with Each the last witnesses all of testified: * * * strong corroboration. This corrobora- Pressley “That not arrest did and detain very act, sufficient, tion, the be must Aubrey Oden, represent he said did corpus delicti, giving testi- of material the High Sheriff; himself to be Mathews corruptly mony willfully false. that the said Walter did Holmes take hold of alleged when, ac- it is as in this And cused Aubrey Oden.” statements which has two sworn made if, conflict’, there is in irreconcilable [5] And the witness who testified that versions, strong how corroboration of one things Aubrey these did occur man false? Previous it be affirmed alleged difficulty Oden. The between Holmes contradictory statements, oath, with made or without Oden, all, place if it may very important at occurred took in con- circumstances, morning dáy question, the the nection with many accused; but, witnesses how across the railroad Al from Pichter’s store may conflicting statements different and the be city of Cullman. This the time and proof proved, not corroborative this is alleged place difficulty out of which charged is the The offense delicti. prosecution against Walter Holmes for knowledge of certain false denial of battery grew, assault and the facts and cir criminating against Norris and Cauthen. facts happened cumstances which at that time and nature as be of should Corroboration gestae place constituted the res of the offense prove of such crim- tend to the existence would stated, every in the Holmes case. As before knowledge inating facts, and the defendant’s present person positive 74 Ala. 34. at that time Peterson testified existence.” their (1), (2), ly (3), through court, speaking again And to, occur; only, referred ’ above and did Oden Brickell, in the case of Wil- Justice Chief without corroboration as to either state State, states the same liams ment, contrary. testified to the language: following principle in the of Oden corroboration ments of the state single (1), witness is suffi- “The relate to statement “that he did that the defendant indictment: cient testified Aubrey Oden,” and detain not arrest and as charged but to authorize this record shown this corroboration is falsity conviction, the must Gay testimony of the Lonnie witnesses Felix and respec witnesses, proved one two Oden, brother, cousin and corroborating circumstances.” Williams v. tively, Aubrey Oden. These two witnesses that at 3 o’clock the afternoon of day, Stifelmeyer’s store, On the trial this case failed several materiality alleged difficulty, to disclose the first two after hours and at a place city in- Cullman, they contained different ; Pressley court erred in over- therefore the dictment ruling heard Aubrey tell Lonnie Oden “that he had the motion to exclude same. And Oden under arrest.” The contention Attorney as to the assault Oden General that battery upon him Walter gestee or assault and these of the offense is without appearing witnesses relate to the res merit; affirmatively without corroboration of Holmes character, contrary. the defendant was entitled requested affirmative in writ- Nor can we accord correctness of the ing, Attorney also in erred insistence General that on give same. homicide, trial for in cases of un- ALABAMA APPELLATE REPORTS Appeal Court, opinion, be re- from Calhoun Coun- Circuit der this the evidence Hugh ty; Judge. Merrill, fired D. whether defendant stricted cases the blow. In homicide shot or struck Wesley Ray manufactur- convicted scope inquiry greater than is much ing prohibited liquor, appeals. Af- and he ques- cases of assault firmed. deliberation, premeditation, willful- tion of jointly ness, malicious, indicted and whether the act was was but motion of Rhodes degree Rhodes, one enter in Hurt to determine the guilt. Moreover, granted, relat- severance and the defendant rule materially in alone. a tried The defendant to self-defense differs introduced one Fryer Berry case that of an homicide testified that battery. necessarily against case, on a he had follows Rhodes an unlawful the material had testified in homicide Rhodes’ and was asked inquiry necessarily much had a talk would extend with his own before father greater testifying, limits than that of an assault and and defendant’s counsel at- then battery; inquiry being tempted existing feeling the material as stated to show the state Berry Fryer Did the accused assault between the father of defendant, assault beat the named? but the court declined to allow opinion We adhere to the and him to do so. reaffirm j‘.. Holman, Ross Blackmon B. both of principal witness is without Oden Anniston, appellant. character, corroboration of and therefore permitting Court erred in complained not the evi- here Frye. dence of the cannot sustained under evidence as Rep. 23; South. 82 Am. St. record. disclosed 648; Application overruled. 592; 549; 65 South. 702. Q. Atty. Gen., Smith, J. for. the State. (88 340) Reporter. No brief came to the 668.) v. STATE. Div. RAY SAMFORD, 1921.) permissible (Court Appeals [1] It was not Alabama. Feb. Berry Fryer, for his own defendant &wkey;>363(2) im- 1. Witnesses —Defendant witness, (Berry Fryer) that he had peach own witness. case, talked with witness’ about father jointly defendant was Where indicted with before the trial. Witness’ father was not a other, another, but, on motion of a sev- any way nor in connected granted, erance was and on defendant’s trial entirely with it. The imma he introduced had testified in a talk who testified that he terial, but, according other, and had he had been a witness objected to, if asked testifying, .part his own father before presented of the evidence. The permit err defend- court did not ant’s objec the record the court sustained an feeling to show the state of ex- counsel impeaching tion to defendant’s his own wit isting father and de- between witness’ obviously This is so ness. correct as impeach fendant, since comment. need own witness. competent [2] It was for the solicitor on Proper <&wkey;388(5) cross-examination 2. Witnesses to ask the defendant’s wit coindictee Berry Fryer witness as not, ness trial a former laying impeach- predicate purpose of Rhodes, jointly of one with the ment. defendant, with the offense for which defend competent on cross- for the solicitor tried, ant was now testified to certain if he examination to ask defendant’s had laying facts, purpose predicate charged joint- not, trial of one at a former impeachment. ly for which with the offense with the find error We being charged, testified to now defendant was judgment is affirmed. laying predi- purpose facts, certain impeachment. Affirmed. cate for same KEY-NUMBER cases see Indexes ^—.t?nr

Case Details

Case Name: Pressley v. State

Court Name: Alabama Court of Appeals

Date Published: Jan 11, 1921

Citations: 88 So. 291; 18 Ala. App. 40; 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 32; 6 Div. 672.

Docket Number: 6 Div. 672.

Court Abbreviation: Ala. Ct. App.