Crumpton v. State
| Citation | 12 S.W. 563,52 Ark. 273 |
| Parties | CRUMPTON v. STATE |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1889 |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
ERROR to Craighead Circuit Court, J. E. RIDDICK, Judge.
The appellant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter on an indictment for murder in the first degree.
Affirmed.
N. W. Norton, for appellant.
1. The evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, especially of manslaughter, and the court erred in instructing the jury as to the law of manslaughter. 37 Ark. 436; 50 id., 506.
2. It was error to admit the evidence of Clears and Newcomb to contradict the witness King. The State was bound by the answer of King. Whart. Cr. Ev. (8 ed.), sec. 484; 1 Greenl. Ev. (13 ed.), sec. 449; 11 S.W. 106; 34 Ark. 480; Mansf. Dig., sec. 2902.
W. E. Atkinson, Attorney General, for appellee.
1. It was entirely proper for the court to submit to the jury the entire question, and was for them to say whether the killing being found, it was murder or manslaughter. 37 Ark. 433; 50 Ark. 506.
2. Though enmity or bias be the issue, the court may permit particular facts or conditions to be shown, to prove bias or interest of the witness after the predicate has been laid on his cross-examination, and he had denied their existence. 50 Pa. 319; 64 Ind. 400; 1 Parker Cr. Rep., 154; Greenl. Ev., sec. 450. See the rule in 34 Ark. 484, and 13 id., 800, 801. It is not a collateral question, but a very important one to prove the motives or temper of the witness, and not the reason for the motive.
During the trial of the appellant, a witness introduced by him was asked if he had not made certain statements, which, if made, tended to show that he felt an interest in the defendant's behalf. He denied that he had made the statements, and the State was permitted, against his objection, to prove that he had made them. The bias of one called to testify in a case is not a collateral matter. The testimony was competent. Butler v. State, 34 Ark. 480; Whar. Cr. Ev., sec. 485.
It is urged that the court erred in instructing the jury as to the law of manslaughter, against the appellant's objection.
We cannot say there was no testimony to justify a conviction of manslaughter. Affirm.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodwin v. State, CR-77-85
...or animosity, a quarrel or prejudice, may always be shown to discredit a witness. Cornelius v. State, 12 Ark. 782; Crumpton v. State, 52 Ark. 273, 12 S.W. 563; Hollingsworth v. State, 53 Ark. 387, 14 S.W. 41; McCain v. State, (129 Ark. 75), 195 S.W. 363, and cases cited. In Hollingsworth v.......
-
Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Belknap
... ... toward a party litigant as affecting the credibility of the ... witness. This is not collateral matter. Crumpton v ... State, 52 Ark. 273, 12 S.W. 563. The manner of ... showing it was not contrary to the rule announced in ... Cornelius v. State, 12 Ark ... ...
-
Paxton v. State
... ... probative force of such evidence may be and is very weak, but ... the weight of it is for the jury. * * * It is proper always ... to show the bias or prejudice of a witness toward a party ... litigant as affecting the credibility of the witness. This is ... not collateral matter. Crumpton v. State, ... 52 Ark. 273, 12 S.W. 563." ... In the ... case of Skillern v. Baker, 82 Ark. 86, 100 ... S.W. 764, where the action of the trial judge in directing a ... verdict was reversed, the court said: "But we are of the ... opinion that under the evidence this direction ... ...
-
McCain v. State
...J. O. A. Bush, for appellant. 1. The court erred in not allowing the witness Denman to answer the question showing Smith a biased witness. 52 Ark. 273; on Evidence, § 828. This was not a collateral matter. 2. The court erred in its instructions. 144 S.W. 485-7; 2 Bish. Cr. Proc. (4 ed.), § ......