Legal Opinion

Kirkpatrick v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided February 7, 1922No. 7 Div. 755PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County ; O. A. Steele, Judge. Os Kirkpatrick was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and he appeals. The court erred in permitting the memorandum of the evidence before the grand jury. 181 Ala. 460, 62 South. 12; 158 Ala. 539, 48 South. 553, 132 Am.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County ; O. A. Steele, Judge. Os Kirkpatrick was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and he appeals. The court erred in permitting the memorandum of the evidence before the grand jury. 181 Ala. 460, 62 South. 12; 158 Ala. 539, 48 South. 553, 132 Am. St. Rep. 38; 156 Ala. 228, 47 South. 210; 102 Ala. 164, 14 South. 895 ; 40 Cye. 2559-2569. The court erred in the impeachment of the defendant, not only because the predicate was not followed, but because it was immaterial matter. 144 Ala. 378, 39 South. 654; 106 Ala. 1, 17 South. 328; authorities supra.…

1Opinion of the CourtBrigken, P. J.

[1] Over the objection of defendant, the solicitor was permitted to read to state witness Langley, upon his direct examination, the memorandum of his testimony as given before the grand jury, resulting therefore in calling out from the witness what testimony he had given before the grand jury. This was not permissible. Billingslea v. State, 85 Ala. 323, 5 South. 137; Thompson v. State, 99 Ala. 173, 13 South. 753; 1 Mayfield, Digest, p. 880. In the Billingslea Case, supra, Stone, C. J., speaking for the court said:

“We think it clear that it was not permissible to call out from the'witness…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Billingslea v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
  2. Thompson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Douglas v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1963
  2. Allen v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API