Gillman v. State
Cases that cite this one
40 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Johnson v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)
- Ex Parte McIntosh (Ala. 1983)
- Birmingham v. Evans (Ala. Crim. App. 1974)
- Sims v. Callahan (Ala. 1959)
- Norris v. State (Ala. 1934)
- Bartos v. United States District Court (8th Cir. 1927)
- Cottrell v. NAT. COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASS'N (Ala. 2007)
- Hall v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1994)
- Mayton v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1974)
- Diamond v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1972)
- Brown v. W.R.M.A. Broadcasting Company (Ala. 1970)
- McGovern v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1967)
- Bedsole v. State (Ala. 1963)
- Huggins v. State (Ala. 1960)
- Smith v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1959)
- Humphries v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1957)
- Nelson v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1950)
- Ledbetter v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1948)
- Pinkerton v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1945)
- In re Rothrock (Cal. 1940)
- Life Casualty Ins. Co. v. Bell (Ala. 1938)
- Bostic v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1937)
- Wiggins v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1937)
- Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Murphy (Ala. 1936)
- Clawans v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1932)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
— On her cross-examintion as a witness in her own behalf the defendant was required to answer whether she had been convicted of an assault and battery in the mayor’s court, by which, we take it, was meant that she had been convicted of the violation of an ordinance of the city of Bessemer punishing assault and battery. There are two reasons why this was error:
1. Section 4008 of the Code, relating to the competency and credibility of witnesses as affected by conviction for crime, contemplates only convictions for violations of the state laws, and not conviction's for violations of municipal ordinances. — Cheatham v. State, 59 Ala. 40.
2. A mere assault and battery does not involve moral turpitude. Moral turpitude signifies an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, depravity. Assaults and batteries are frequently the result of transient ebullitions of passion, to which a high order of men are liable, and do not necessarily involve any inherent element of moral turpitnre.
Reversed and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.