Clark v. United States, 4558.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 4558.,4558. |
| Parties | CLARK v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Crandal Mackey and G. E. C. Hayes, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Peyton Gordon and Raymond Neudecker, both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
The appellant, Margaret Clark, was indicted, tried, and convicted upon a charge of grand larceny; the accusation being that on the 22d day of December, 1924, in the District of Columbia, she had stolen a certain coat of the value of $250 belonging to one Lucy C. Cogswell.
At the trial of the case the defendant called a witness who testified to her good reputation for honesty in the neighborhood in which she lived. Thereupon, on cross-examination, the witness was asked by government counsel if, during his acquaintance with the defendant and the people in the neighborhood in which she lived, he had heard that the defendant was arrested on April 22, 1922, on a charge of petit larceny, in which the firm of S. Kann's Sons appeared as the complaining witness. To this question counsel for the defendant objected, upon the ground that the alleged arrest referred to was at a time much prior to the time alleged in the indictment upon which the defendant was being tried, and was not in any wise connected with the matters and things complained of in the indictment, and tended to convey to the jury the idea that she had been convicted of larceny, which was untrue, and to cause the jury to believe that she was an habitual thief, and to excite the prejudice and passion of the jury against her. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant excepted; whereupon the witness answered by saying that he had never heard of any such arrest.
The same question was asked on cross-examination of two other character witnesses called by the accused, and they also answered, under objection and exceptions, that they had never heard of such an accusation or arrest. The court instructed the jury that the testimony called for by these questions was not admissible as substantive evidence against the defendant, but merely for the purpose of affecting the credibility of the character witnesses, and that it was not to be considered by the jury as bearing upon the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused in any manner whatsoever.
In the present appeal the appellant presents but a single assignment of error, to wit, "that the court erred in allowing the character witnesses to be asked the question if they respectively had heard that the defendant was arrested on April 22, 1922, on the charge of petit larceny in which the firm of S. Kann's Sons appeared as the complaining witness, over the objection of counsel for the defendants."
In our opinion, this complaint is without merit. The overwhelming weight of authority supports the view that character witnesses,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Lewis
...156, 352 F.2d at 453; Stewart v. United States, supra note 16, 70 App.D.C. at 101, 102, 104 F.2d at 235, 236; Clark v. United States, 57 App.D.C. 335, 336, 23 F.2d 756, 757 (1927). 26 See Michelson v. United States, supra note 13, 335 U.S. at 472-473, 69 S.Ct. 213 n. 3; Coleman v. United St......
-
Mannix v. United States
...9 Cir., 222 F. 766; Filippelli v. United States, 9 Cir., 6 F.2d 121; Mitrovich v. United States, 9 Cir., 15 F.2d 163; Clark v. United States, 57 App.D.C. 335, 23 F.2d 756. In the case of Spalitto v. United States, 39 F.2d 782, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit discussed this ......
-
Josey v. United States
...76 L.Ed. 944; 1 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 58. 13 Stewart v. United States, 70 App.D. C. 101, 104 F.2d 234; Clark v. United States, 57 App.D.C. 335, 23 F.2d 756; Jung Quey v. United States, 9 Cir., 222 F. 766, 771; Spalitto v. United States, 8 Cir., 39 F.2d 782; 3 Wigmore, Evidence (......
-
Awkard v. United States
...scope for cross-examination on these matters is unclear. See Sacks v. United States, 41 App.D.C. 34 (1913); Clark v. United States, 57 App. D.C. 335, 23 F.2d 756 (1927) (matters raised on cross-examination must "bear reference to the nature of the charge against" the defendant); Stewart v. ......