History
  • No items yet
midpage
Shaw v. State
106 So. 685
Ala. Ct. App.
1925
Check Treatment

It is permissible for one to testify that another appeared nervous or excited. 4 Mich. Dig. p. 210, par. 290 (3).

There can be no reversal predicated upon the rulings of the court in refusing to permit defendant to ask the witness India Baugh on cross-examination, "Do you say you did or did not tell Mr. Hill that Otto Shaw had kidnapped Indiana Morgan?" because this witness had just testified that she had, and as to when the witness was again at Mr. Hill's office was immaterial.

As to whether the little girl had on a former occasion "jumped on defendant's car" was not relevant to the issues here.

The testimony as to lacerations of the parts, by the witness Simpson, did not call for the testimony of an expert, and hence his testimony on this point was admissible without his having to qualify.

Refused charge 2 has been recently condemned in Alonzo Jones v. State, 213 Ala. 390, 104 So. 773.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Shaw v. State
Court Name: Alabama Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jun 30, 1925
Citation: 106 So. 685
Docket Number: 8 Div. 328.
Court Abbreviation: Ala. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.