Argabright v. State
Decision Date | 02 December 1896 |
Parties | ARGABRIGHT v. STATE. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
The jury are the sole judges of the credibility of witnesses, and it is error for a trial court, in a criminal case, to single out a particular witness for the defense by name, and give to the jury a cautionary instruction, which applies directly to his testimony the rule of “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.”
Error to district court, Nemaha county; Babcock, Judge.
John W. Argabright was convicted of manslaughter, and brings error. Reversed.
W. H. Kelligar and John H. Stull, for plaintiff in error.
A. S. Churchill, Atty. Gen., and Geo. A. Day, Dep. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was, by an indictment filed in the district court of Nemaha county, charged with the crime of murder, and, after a plea of not guilty, was placed on trial. As a result of the trial he was convicted of manslaughter, and, after motion for new trial was heard and overruled, he was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of 10 years. To obtain a review of the proceedings had during the trial, the case is presented to this court by petition in error.
No bill of exceptions has been filed in the case by plaintiff in error, for reasons which we need not here recount or notice, having been unable to obtain one. Hence we can consider no other or further of the errors assigned than such as are fully apparent in the transcript prepared by the clerk of the district court. Of these, one is that the court erred in giving instruction No. 13 of those requested to be given by the state. The instruction attacked is as follows: “If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the witnesses Lewis Morris, Hilton Stanley, and Perry Waltz have willfully sworn falsely on this trial as to any matter or thing material to the issue in the case, then the jury are at liberty to disregard their entire testimony, except in so far as it has been corroborated by other credible evidence, or by facts and circumstances proved on the trial.” It is contended that this portion of the charge of the court is erroneous, in that it singles out certain individuals of the witnesses, and directs especial attention to them and their testimony, respectively; that such action of the trial court was well calculated to induce a belief or an impression in the minds of the jury, or in the mind of any one or more of them, of the court's disbelief of the testimony of the witness or witnesses specifically named, or, at least, that the court viewed it with suspicion, and felt inclined to discredit it. One of the governing principles of the question involved is that it is for the jury, and not the court, to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, and to determine the weight to be accorded their testimony (Hedman v. Anderson, 6 Neb. 392;Heldt v. State, 20 Neb. 492, 30 N. W. 626;State v. Cushing, 29 Mo. 215;Shellabarger v. Nafus, 15 Kan. 547;State v. Stout, 31 Mo. 406), and extending this doctrine, and applying it to an instruction, on the maxim, “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.” “The credibility of a witness who knowingly testifies falsely as to one or more material facts is wholly a matter for the jury.” Schuek v. Hagar, 24 Minn. 339. 2 Thomp. Trials, p. 1772, § 2423. State v. Stout, 31 Mo. 406. “An instruction that, if the jury find that any witness has testified falsely as to any material fact in the case, they are at liberty to reject and disbelieve all of his testimony, clearly and sufficiently states the law on the subject; and it is not error for the court to refuse to give a request applying such rule to a particular witness, and challenging the attention of the jury to particular portions of his testimony which the request assumes as false.” Fraser v. Haggerty, 86 Mich. 521, 49 N. W. 616. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Strong v. State
...v. Same, 20 Neb. 492, 30 N. W. 626;Long v. Same, 23 Neb. 33, 36 N. W. 310;Johnson v. Same, 34 Neb. 257, 51 N. W. 835;Argabright v. Same, 49 Neb. 760, 69 N. W. 102;Burnet v. Cavanaugh, 56 Neb. 190, 76 N. W. 578;Chase v. Iron Works, 55 Mich. 139, 20 N. W. 827;In re Stickney's Will (Fox v. Mar......
- Argabright v. State
-
Strong v. State
...v. State, 20 Neb. 492, 30 N.W. 626; Long v. State, 23 Neb. 33, 36 N.W. 310; Johnson v. State, 34 Neb. 257, 51 N.W. 835; Argabright v. State, 49 Neb. 760, 69 N.W. 102; Burnet v. Cavanagh, 56 Neb. 190, 76 N.W. Chase v. Buhl Iron Works, 55 Mich. 139, 20 N.W. 827; In re Stickney's Will (Fox v. ......
-
Argabright v. State
...by this court, and new trials awarded. The opinions resulting in such reversals, and the reasons therefor, are found in Argabright v. State, 49 Neb. 760, 69 N. W. 102, and under the same title, on the second appeal, in 56 Neb. 363, 76 N. W. 876. After the case was reversed and remanded the ......