Benefield v. State Court Opinion 2
Working File
October 29, 1957

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Bozeman & Wilder Working Files. Benefield v. State Court Opinion 2, 1957. 023f4d86-ee92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/885c30ac-0dbb-4548-bccf-6852ef2160ee/benefield-v-state-court-opinion-2. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
valuable to be trifled with, or to per_ mit the court to enter into any calcu- lation as to how far it may be en_ croached upon without injury to the party'. Or, as was written in Schrvick- ert v. Levin, 76 App.Div. 373, 3ZS, Zg N.Y.S. 391, 395, supra: ,The defend- ant had the right to see, and to use on cross-examination, any memorandum or writing which had served to re_ fresh the memory of the witness on his directexamination. * * * Asthe convcrsation was material, the defend_ -ant might possibly have by this limitation upon his cross_exam- ination, and thercfore I think that a new.trial should be ordered.,,, The judgment of the circuit court is re_ versed and the cause rem:rnded for pro_ ceedings consistent herervith. Revcrsed and remanded. On Application for Rehearing. t3] The Attorney General contends that even if our inferr'nccs from the testimony were corrcct, ncverthcless the error we cite for reversal rvould be harmlcss becausc rvit_ nesses other than I,Ir. Walton gave testi_ mony sufficient to support a verdict of guilt. t4] The qrrality of error is not measured by adding or taking away grains of fault. If there is injurious (or prejudicial) error in any degrce in the latitude afforded a de_ fendant in proper cross examination as to a confession, then we cannot say what might have been the outcome had the witness been questioned further. To adopt any, other course would be an innovation in ap_ pellate review, i. e., to assess the weight of each witncss' testimony-not intrinsically as we might assess it ancw-but for its effect on the jury. Applicatiorr overrulcd. lOO SOUTEXRN EEPOBTEB, 2d SEBIES Wllllard Spencer 340 AIa. Y. ETATE of Atabanr. 6 Dlv. 24S. Supreme Court of Jan. 23, 105& Prosecution for murder. Court, Tuscaloosa County, W. J., entered judgment of Appeals, 100 So.2d 334, tron on defendant's appeal. plied for certiorari. The trial court as to rvhether witness' f ed at criminal prosecution mern.rr:rnda to refrcsh his i r..'ould not bc disturbed on ce Writ dcnied. l. Crlmlnal Law €l179 Suprc'ne Cotrrt on certionil \. l::' ,.c & Dal'idson, , r.J !tl NNII-L, Justice. , rl ::,,:icr assertS that "i tb, r r:t.,tl('r)rrslY tOOk the a jr:r3r(rr {rantt from the .. ...tt c e:td lrroceedings r, c l,,r lrcrv trial, that s ,t llett,,tr tlitl, in fact, rcl li'a: ,tl.ri( ! r;rls r+'hiclf he h --.ffirrrrfun--ti 1r<r rt rliirrrrativcly appc I,.{,rf tltt' t'r'itlcttce a ,.. ..1 rr:l,1111ttctl to thc C ., ., .i: l:',,1:rrg t.rf thC t r.: 'i:rt tlrc rvitrtcss \\'a r : .( tU rcfrc:h his re I 1i ( crt;rinl.\', thc C, . ' !. |:r: thc foll,rrviltg st I ;.,r.!1,.. of tvhat it' \t,,'',:t tt;ts ttsittlr ... s,. tlrirrk it sho r .. t. 1,, rlt.fct.tsc ct .,:..r:!tl.\' :tt tllc I : (t .. (.\;lnliltirtioll.' rha llerrill, J., hetd that findinj ol Court of Appeals contrary tolhi' not disturt: finding of fact by Appcals contrary to that marle by as to n hether u.itness who criminal prosecution ruas using nd to rcfresh his recollection. 2. Wltnesses @254 if, ;it'.: ,. It is an every day occureno! nesses arm themselves with bor& count, notations or other papers ia tion for both direct and but often such material is neve, nor used and a witness is nol to ed of using aids to his memory, such itcnrs are in his possessioo takes the stand. i Sliitlrnore & Davidson, Tuscaloosa, op- Fricd' l\lI'-RRILL, Justice' l\.tirioner asserts that "The Court of Ap- g<;rls crroneously took the position, through rriir'rr'nccs drawn from the transcript of the rrrrlt'ncc and proceedings had on the mo- t:.,1 for nerv trial, that state's witness E. .A \\'alton did, in fact, refresh his memory lr.rnr rrratcrials which he had in his posses- r,rrr shile testifying orr the witness stand -r-\cn it afhrmatively appears by the tran- l rrl't oI thc evidence appearing in the r,i,,rrl subnritted to the Court of Appeals t)...t rhc firrding of the trial court below rr. rlt;rt thc rvitness Walton did not use r,,.r ihrrrg to refresh his recollection." t,rr \ clr)ss cxantittation.,, At!. 341 This finding of fact is contrary to that made by the trial court as to whether the witness was using the memoranda, but hav- ing been made, we will not disturb it on certiorari. 4 Ala.Dig., Certiorari, €fg. But, we do disagree with the statement following the quoted portion, supra, which reads: "Indeed, we deem suspect of using aides-memoir any witness who brings papers or books to the stand." It is an every day occurrence that wit- nesses arrn themselves -with books of=dcj -' ---- count, notations or other papers in prepara- tion for both direct and cross-examination, but often the matcrial is never required nor used. To say that the witness is to be suspected of using aids to his memory, just because they are in his possesSion when he takes the stand, is disapproved if this is the correct interpretation of the quoted statemcnt. Writ denied. LAWSON, SII\{PSON and GOOD- WYN, JJ., concur. BENETIELD v. ETATE Clte ae 100 So.2d &{0 r BENEFIELD ' t, Al.b.mL I l;E , 2,t5. ,{ b of Alalumr.l;iu ,195& .,{ l: :EI :urder. The rnty, W. C. of , and the 34, reve peat. The Ihe Supreml finding of {d :ary to that nil er witness wt iecution w4'' ;h his r I on certiorui ! n certiorad fact by Oct t made by s who testild rs uslng on. )ccurrence with boob d r paPers tn I is nevet is not to lt emory, .rl+ .,rir" . :i \-" ,. G.n., uf r'1 $.; $,( p s.l* EI ,F It ,u i? t: F il I i, fr { ,: t, ll il Ji I i sifl ! r., f,rr tlrc i'''