Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918

Herbert v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama · Decided March 23, 1918 · No. 8 Div. 78. · Sayre

78 So. 386; 201 Ala. 480; 1918 Ala. LEXIS 34 (Southern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Chambers v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1919)
Mitchell v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1962)
Hubby v. United States (5th Cir. 1945)
Thompson v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1936)
Parker v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1934)
Phillips v. Ashworth (Ala. 1929)
Durell v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1929)
Shaddix v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1929)
Thomas v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1924)
Owens v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1924)
Mitchell v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1924)
Davis v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1922)
Dill v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1921)

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

SAYRE, J.

This court is of the opinion that the question raised by petitioner’s (appellant’s) objection to evidence of acts between him and the prosecutrix done after the alleged seduction cannot be distinguished on any substantial grounds from the like question raised in Pope v. State, 137 Ala. 56, 34 South. 840, and in the cases cited on the brief for appellant to which the court in that case referred. The settled law of this state is that such subsequent acts cannot, in the face of apt objection, be proved against the defendant in a seduction case. The judgment of the Court of Appeals holding to the contrary in effect is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings in conformity herewith.

All the Justices concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.