Gilbreath v. State

Gilbreath v. State.

Gilbreath v. State, 129 So. 312 (Ala. Ct. App. 1930)

Court: Alabama Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided: June 30, 1930
Docket: No. 7 Div. 667.
Judges: Samford
Citations: 129 So. 31223 Ala. App. 5791930 Ala. App. LEXIS 187

Cited by 6

Opinion of the Court — Samford

SAMFORD, J.

The excerpt from the court’s oral ■charge to which exception was reserved, when taken and considered with and in connection with the whole charge, is free from error. Gilbreath v. State, ante, p. 33, 120 So. 304 .

The defendant reserved exceptions to two questions asked defendant by the state while he was being examined as a witness on cross-examination, to wit: “You beat Ezra Lee up for swearing against you in the other case?” and “You mean to swear you didn’t beat him up for swearing against you?” Ezra Lee was a witness for the state who had testified for the state in two former trials *581 of this case, and upon whose testimony the state’s ease largely depended. An effort by a defendant to suppress testimony against him is alwáys relevant and admissible. Piano v. State, 161 Ala. 88 , 49 So. 803 ; Maxey v. State, 76 Ark. 276 , 88 S. W. 1009 ; Love v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 27 , 29 S. W. 790 .

The fault with refused charges 1 and 8 lies in the fact that the conviction of this defendant was not entirely dependent upon the testimony of one witness. The charges are misleading. Baxley v. State, 18 Ala. App. 277 , 90 So. 434 ; Love v. State, 218 Ala. 66 , 117 So. 400 .

Refused charge 2 is held to be bad in Powell v. State, 20 Ala. App. 606 , 104 So. 551 .

Refused charge 3 is held bad in Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 489 , 96 So. 636 ; Powell v. State, 20 Ala. App. 606 , 104 So. 551 .

Refused charges 4 and 5 are covered by the oral charge of the court and by written given charges.

Refused charge 6 is abstract.

Refused charge 7 is covered by given charge 1.

Refused charges 9 and 10 are covered by the court in its oral charge.

Refused charge 11 is bad. Brown v. State, 142 Ala. 287 , 38 So. 268 .

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

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts6

Relies on it most ⓘ

Bringhurst v. State20 So. 2d 885 (Ala. Ct. App. 1945)
Lovejoy v. State34 So. 2d 692 (Ala. Ct. App. 1948)
Brown v. State31 So. 2d 670 (Ala. Ct. App. 1946)
Tanner v. State66 So. 2d 827 (Ala. Ct. App. 1953)
Mason v. State64 So. 2d 606 (Ala. Ct. App. 1953)
May v. State45 So. 2d 695 (Ala. Ct. App. 1950)

Most recent

Tanner v. State66 So. 2d 827 (Ala. Ct. App. 1953)
Mason v. State64 So. 2d 606 (Ala. Ct. App. 1953)
May v. State45 So. 2d 695 (Ala. Ct. App. 1950)
Lovejoy v. State34 So. 2d 692 (Ala. Ct. App. 1948)
Brown v. State31 So. 2d 670 (Ala. Ct. App. 1946)
Bringhurst v. State20 So. 2d 885 (Ala. Ct. App. 1945)

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.

Authorities cited 8

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Powell v. State, 104 So. 551 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925)	20
	Baxley v. State, 90 So. 434 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921)	29
	Piano v. State, 49 So. 803 (Ala. 1909)	23
	Maxey v. State, 88 S.W. 1009 (Ark. 1905)	22
	Love v. State, 29 S.W. 790 (Tex. Crim. App. 1895)	19
	Love v. State, 117 So. 400 (Ala. 1928)	9
	Brown v. State, 142 Ala. 287 (1904)	39
	Ex Parte Anderson, 96 So. 636 (Ala. 1923)	6

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list