Gissendanner v. State
Gissendanner v. State.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
SAMFORD, J.
On the trial of the case the wife of the deceased, over the timely objection of defendant, was permitted to testify that shortly before bis death deceased had said “Bricie [meaning defendant] had robbed him.” This testimony was not admissible for two reasons: First, no predicate had been laid for a dying declaration; Second, the statement was a conclusion. Pilcher v. State, 16 Ala. App. 237 , 77 South. 75 ; Pressley v. State, 166 Ala. 17 , 52 South. 337 ; Reaves v. State, 158 Ala. 5 , 48 South. 373 ; Oliver v. State, 17 Ala. 587 ; Autrey v. State, 190 Ala. 10 , 67 South. 237 . Further, this evidence is not shown to be material.
The only effect of this evidence was to prejudice the defendant’s case in the minds of the jury.
For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is-remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
¡g^oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.