State v. Lee

Decision Date26 February 1876
PartiesSTATE OF MINNESOTA <I>vs.</I> EDWARD LEE.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

W. A. Gorman, and I. V. D. Heard, for appellant.

Geo. P. Wilson, Attorney General, for the State.

BERRY, J.

The defendant was indicted for the commission of a rape. Upon the trial "the prosecuting witness testified, among other things, that the defendant, in the commission of the offence charged in the indictment, committed a violent assault and battery upon her, and threatened to take her life, before he committed the alleged offence, and testified she was sure that the defendant was the person who committed the offence. The defendant testified in his defence that he did not commit the alleged offence, and was not present at the time it was committed, but was in another part of the city at the time, * * * and that he never saw the prosecuting witness * * * until several days after * * * she alleged the offence was committed."

The defendant called as a witness one Hopkins, who testified as follows: "Know defendant; first saw him nearly two years ago; he worked at the driving park in this county. I think I am acquainted with defendant's general character for peaceableness." On preliminary cross-examination by the prosecuting attorney the witness testified as follows: "Never heard his character spoken of by any one before this transaction." On behalf of defendant the witness was asked the following questions, viz.: 1. "What was defendant's character as to peace and quietness?" 2. "What was defendant's disposition as to peace and quietness?" Both questions were excluded by the court upon objection by the prosecution.

Several other witnesses were asked similar questions, (also excluded,) but none of them appear from the testimony to have been acquainted with the defendant's character for peace and quietness, (using the word character in the sense of reputed character, or reputation,) so as to qualify them to testify to the same, though some of them showed more or less knowledge of defendant's disposition.

Defendant also proposed, in the language of the record, "to call other witnesses, who had been acquainted with defendant for about two years, but who had never heard his character, disposition, or reputation discussed or spoken of, and to prove by them that his disposition for peace and quietness was good; also that his character for the same was good, and also that his general reputation for the same was good; but the court held that neither of the above could be shown unless the witnesses would testify that they heard the defendant's character or disposition for peace and quietness discussed or spoken of."

By the strict and technical rule, as laid down by the textwriters, the only evidence of his good character which an accused person is permitted to adduce upon his trial for a criminal offence is evidence of general repute. In practice, however, the rule is seldom strictly enforced, but is in fact much...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Com. v. Luther
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • 15 Julio 1983
    ...v. Stefanowicz, supra 118 Pa.Super. at 82, 179 A. at 771. See also State v. Sprague, 64 N.J.Law, 419, 45 A. 788 (1900); State v. Lee, 22 Minn. 407, 21 Am.Rep. 769 (1876); Lincecum v. State, 29 Tex.App. 328, 15 S.W. 818 (1890) (proof of quiet and peaceful character of defendant admissible in......
  • State v. Mucci
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 9 Diciembre 1957
    ...enterprise, a mode of proof somewhat akin to evidence of 'character,' by way of disposition or reputation in the community, State v. Lee, 22 Minn. 407 (Sup.Ct.1876); and, whatever its probative worth for other purposes, it had little or no virtue as proof of the essential and relevant fact ......
  • State v. Morris, 22022.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 6 Mayo 1921
    ...would be likely to have heard anything said against him may testify that he never heard any remark against his character. State v. Lee, 22 Minn. 407, 21 Am. Rep. 769. Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of this sort, and that prejudice to his substantial ri......
  • State v. Morris
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 6 Mayo 1921
    ...would be likely to have heard anything said against him, may testify that he never heard any remark against his character. State v. Lee, 22 Minn. 407, 21 Am. Rep. 769. Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of this sort and that prejudice to his substantial ri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT