Harris v. State
Alabama Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtSamford, J.
There is no presumption that a witness while testifying is telling the truth. The credibility of witnesses while testifying in a case is for the jury. Therefore refused charge 1 was properly refused as being invasive of the province of the jury. 28 R. C. L. 660; Stix & Co. v. Keith, 85 Ala. 465, 5 So. 184. The case of Rowland v. Plummer, 50 Ala. 182, 195, has been expressly overruled on this point and the case of Crisp v. State, 21 Ala. App. 449, 109 So. 282 (ninth headnote), was not decided on that point.
Refused charge 4 was not supported by any evidence in the case, and was therefore…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Jones v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1926
- Rowland & Co. v. PlummerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1874
- Crisp v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1925
- Stix & Co. v. KeithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
3Cited by13 opinions
- United States of America Ex Rel. James C. Haynes v. Charles L. McKendrick Warden, Wallkill State Prison, Walkill, New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- Cosby v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1959
- Foster v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1953
- Touart v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1989
- Williams v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1987
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.