limits inquiry in Alabama

1973In Way v. State, 155 Ala. 52 , 46 So. 273 , the character witness was asked: “If a man was guilty of getting drunk and going to disreputable places and fighting, would that person have a good character ?” The court quoted a portion of the opinion in Moulton, supra, in explantion of why such questions are illegal: “ ‘A witness to character cannot speak of particular acts, or even the course of conduct of the person inquired about, but is confined to a statement of general reputation in the neighborhood in which he lives.’ And so, too, it was held in that case that the cross-examination of a cha

1973In Way v. State, 155 Ala. 52 , 46 So. 273 , the character witness was asked: “If a man was guilty of getting drunk and going to disreputable places and fighting, would that person have a good character ?” The court quoted a portion of the opinion in Moulton, supra, in explantion of why such questions are illegal: “ ‘A witness to character cannot speak of particular acts, or even the course of conduct of the person inquired about, but is confined to a statement of general reputation in the neighborhood in which he lives.’ And so, too, it was held in that case that the cross-examination of a cha

2004Justice Johnstone also expresses concern that "this case tests the limits of the doctrine that an appellate court will affirm the evidentiary ruling of a trial court if it is right for any reason supported by the record even if the parties did not argue the reason and the trial judge did not adopt it." 931 So.2d at 774 n. 10.

2004Justice Johnstone also expresses concern that "this case tests the limits of the doctrine that an appellate court will affirm the evidentiary ruling of a trial court if it is right for any reason supported by the record even if the parties did not argue the reason and the trial judge did not adopt it." 931 So.2d at 774 n. 10.

1997Rule 32(C)(1); Coleman, supra. The amount charged to the mother in this case is within the discretion of the trial court upon a showing of the son’s needs.

1930A. 301] that the cross-examination of a character witness must be conducted within the limits of this inquiry.” Way v. State, 155 Ala. 52 , 46 So. 273, 278 ; Harmon v. State, 22 Ala. App. 288 , 115 So. 67 .

1930A. 301] that the cross-examination of a character witness must be conducted within the limits of this inquiry.” Way v. State, 155 Ala. 52 , 46 So. 273, 278 ; Harmon v. State, 22 Ala. App. 288 , 115 So. 67 .

1914The lands must be in “separate parcels, distinctly marked for separate and distinct enjoyment,” and such parcels, when so sold en masse, must bring at the sale an adequate price.—Mahone v. Williams, 39 Ala. 202 .