Davis v. Byrd
Decision Date | 16 April 1884 |
Docket Number | 11,343 |
Citation | 94 Ind. 525 |
Parties | Davis v. Byrd |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Montgomery Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed.
J. R Courtney, for appellant.
M Thompson, W. H. Thompson and W. B. Herod, for appellee.
The trial court ordered the separation of witnesses, and Frank Pennington, a witness for the appellant, had notice of this order, although not in court at the time it was made; notwithstanding this notice, he came into the court room and remained while several witnesses were testifying. It does not appear that the appellant was in any manner responsible for the presence of the witness in the court room, nor that he did anything to bring it about, nor that he had any knowledge of the violation of the order of the court by the witness. On the motion of the appellee, the court refused to permit the witness to testify, and this ruling presents the only question in the case.
A witness who disobeys the order of the court excluding him from the court room should be punished, and severely punished, for his disobedience, but this punishment should fall on the guilty person, and not on an innocent party. It is difficult to imagine any principle of law which will justify the punishment of an innocent party for the contumacious behavior of a witness. A litigant has no authority over the witnesses subpoenaed by him, and is not answerable for their wrongful conduct, and he ought not to be denied a right because a wrong has been committed for which he is neither morally nor legally responsible. It may be a very serious punishment to be deprived of the testimony of a witness and if the party is himself free from fault, this punishment should not be visited on him; if, however, he is in fault, if he has directly or indirectly influenced the witness to disobey the order of the court, or if he has knowingly suffered it, then it is but just that he should pay the penalty of his wrongful act by the loss of the witness's testimony. We hold the true rule to be this: Where a party is without fault, and a witness disobeys an order directing a separation of witnesses, the party shall not be denied the right of having the witness testify, but the conduct of the witness may go to the jury upon the question of his credibility. The modern authorities are overwhelmingly in favor of this doctrine. Mr. Bishop says: 1 Bishop Crim. Proc., sections 1191, 1192. An English author gives this statement of the rule: "But it seems to be now settled, that the judge has no right to reject the witness on this ground, however much his wilful disobedience of the order may lessen the value of his evidence." 2 Taylor Ev. 1210. The same doctrine is found in 2 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Johnson, 76--55
...So. 484 (1907); Johnson v. Cooley, 30 Tex.Civ.App. 576, 71 S.W. 34 (1902); State v. Lee Doon, 7 Wash. 308, 34 P. 1103 (1893); Davis v. Byrd, 94 Ind. 525 (1884); Rooks v. State, 65 Ga. 330 As the recital of the facts of the instant case makes clear, the crucial issue at trial was whether or ......
-
Smith v. State
...the witness, and the jury should be allowed to hear such evidence in order to evaluate the witness' believability at trial. See Davis v. Byrd (1883), 94 Ind. 525; Burk v. Andis (1884), 98 Ind. An examination of the record discloses no grounds for mistrial in the opinion of this court. The f......
-
Crosby v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 5552.
...and unless the party calling the witness connived at the violation of the ruling he should not be punished. As said by the court in Davis v. Byrd, 94 Ind. 525: “A witness who disobeys the order of the court excluding him from the court room should be punished, and severely punished, for his......
-
Crosby v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, a Corp.
... ... United States, 150 U.S. 91, 37 L. ed. 1010, 14 S.Ct. 10; ... State v. Falk, 46 Kan. 498, 26 P. 1024; Davis v ... State, 120 Ga. 843, 48 S.E. 305. Here, however, the ... court says: "It has repeatedly been held that it is ... within the discretion of ... connived at the violation of the ruling he should not be ... punished. As said by the court in Davis v. Byrd, 94 ... Ind. 525: "A witness who disobeys the order of the court ... excluding him from the court room should be punished, and ... severely ... ...