Billingslea v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Erom the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before tbe Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. The indictment in this case was found at the July term, 1887, of said court, and charged tbe defendant with playing a game of cards at some one of tbe public bouses or places specified in tbe statute.
Read the full summary
Erom the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before tbe Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. The indictment in this case was found at the July term, 1887, of said court, and charged tbe defendant with playing a game of cards at some one of tbe public bouses or places specified in tbe statute. On tbe trial, at tbe February term, 1888, issue being joined on tbe plea of not guilty, tbe State introduced one Hutchings as a witness, who testified, “that be bad an indistinct recollection of having played a game of poker with tbe defendant and others, in a room in tbe Euby Hotel in tbe city of Montgomery, but could…
1Opinion of the Court
STONE, 0. J.
We think it clear that it was not permissible to call out from the witness, Hutchings,.what testimony he had given before the grand jury. A party on trial for a public offense has the constitutional right “to be confronted 'by the witnesses against him.” The right of cross-examination is scarcely less sacred than this; and parties, whose conduct is undergoing investigation before a grand jury, have no right to be present, and are not permitted to be represented before that body. It is a grand inquest, but it is secret, and ex parte.
The record before us shows that the witness was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Acklen's v. HickmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1879
- Phœnix Insurance v. MoogSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
3Cited by13 opinions
- Ala. Great Southern Railroad v. FrazierSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Sage v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
- Douglas v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1963
- State v. PattonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- State v. StewartNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1929
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.