Card v. Foot
| Citation | 57 Conn. 427,18 A. 713 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 09 September 1889 |
| Parties | CARD v. FOOT. |
Appeal from superior court, New Haven county; ANDREWS, Judge.
Action by Maria D. Card against Enos Foot, to recover the value of certain bonds. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
H. Stoddard and W. L. Bennett, for appellant. C. S. Hamilton, for appellee.
It appears from the record in this case that prior to the trial in the court below the defendant had been convicted before a justice's court of a simple assault and breach of the peace, and sentenced to pay a fine of seven dollars; that he had taken an appeal from the judgment to the superior court, and that in that court a nolle prosequi had been entered in the case. At the trial below the court, against the objection of the defendant, allowed the plaintiff to introduce the record of the conviction in evidence, for the purpose of affecting the credit of the defendant as a witness. In rebuttal the defendant introduced evidence showing the allowance of the appeal, and the action taken thereon in the superior court, and then moved that all evidence in reference to the record and the record itself be stricken out; which motion the court denied. In its charge with reference to the record and evidence the court told the jury, in substance, that the record was admissible to prove a conviction, notwithstanding the appeal, and that such conviction might be considered by them in determining whether the defendant's character for truth and veracity, and his credibility as a witness, were affected or not thereby, and, if so, how much. To this, also, exception was taken. In admitting the record for such a purpose, and in so charging the jury, we think the court erred. Even in cases where it is allowable to show a conviction of crime to affect the credit of a witness, such conviction must generally be shown by the record of a valid, subsisting, final judgment. A judgment vacated, reversed, or set aside, upon writ of error, appeal, or other appropriate proceedings, is in law no judgment, and the record thereof ought not to have any force in affecting the credit of a witness. In the case at bar the appeal, under our law, vacated the judgment of the justice's court. Curtiss v. Beardsley, 15 Conn. 524; Wick wire v. State, 19 Conn. 484; State v. Harding, 39 Conn. 562. After the appeal was allowed, the judgment was as effectually set aside and made of none effect as if it had been reversed and set aside upon proceedings in error. Alter the appeal, so far as the present question is concerned, it was as if no judgment had been rendered, and the defendant had not been convicted. The record was therefore inadmissible for the purpose for which it was received, and should have been rejected.
The court also erred in its charge to the jury. Under the common law, persons convicted of crimes which rendered them infamous were disqualified as witnesses. Such, also, was the law of this state before it was modified by statute. It was not, however, contended in the argument before this court that the conviction in question here would have made the defendant infamous, or disqualified him as a witness at common law, but it was claimed that his conviction of any crime might, under our statute, be shown to affect his credit as a witness. We do not so construe the statute. So far as the question involved in this claim is concerned, the language of our statute is as follows: "No person shall be disqualified as a witness in any action by reason * * * of his conviction of crime, but such * * * conviction may be shown for the purpose of affecting his credit." Gen. St. § 1098. Under our law, prior to this statute, a class of persons convicted of certain crimes, to-wit, infamous crimes, were disqualified as witnesses; another class of persons, convicted of certain other crimes, were not disqualified. In this state of the law, the statute above quoted was passed. In the first clause the intent is evident and clear; namely, to render competent as witnesses those who had theretofore been disqualified by reason of conviction of infamous crimes. But the legislature did not thereby intend to make such persons witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moynahan
...is not admissible as evidence to attack the credibility of a witness. Hayward v. Maroney, 86 Conn. 261, 262, 85 A. 379; Card v. Foot, 57 Conn. 427, 432, 18 A. 713; see the cases collected in note, 20 A.L.R.2d 1421, 1425 § 3. The offer of evidence that the witness had been arrested was not f......
-
State v. Nardini
...crime to testify, but it also provides that "such ... conviction may be shown for the purpose of affecting his credit." Card v. Foot, 57 Conn. 427, 433, 18 A. 713 (1889). When difficulties arose in the trial courts in deciding which crimes were "infamous" or involved "moral turpitude," we s......
-
Koch v. State
...to remove the common-law disability, and permit proof of former conviction of infamous crimes only to affect credibility. Card v. Foot, 57 Conn. 427, 18 Atl. 713; Bartholomew v. People, supra; Coble v. State, 31 Ohio St. 100. While in other states statutes providing that a party who has bee......
-
Kurtz v. Farrington
...* * * of his conviction of crime; but such * * * conviction may be shown for the purpose of affecting his credit." We held in Card v. Foot, 18 A. 713, 57 Conn. 427, that statute referred to infamous crimes, and that the record of conviction of such crimes might be shown " for the purpose of......