First Nat'l Bank of Bartlesville v. Blakeman

• Decision Date: 04 September 1907
• Citation: 91 P. 868,19 Okla. 106,1907 OK 76
• Parties: FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BARTLESVILLE v. GEORGE W. BLAKEMAN.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1907 OK 76

91 P. 868

19 Okla. 106

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BARTLESVILLE v. GEORGE W. BLAKEMAN.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: September 4, 1907

Syllabus

¶0 1. WITNESSES--General Reputation--Evidence of Inadmissable, When. On the trial of a cause to a jury, where the defendant testifies as a witness in his own behalf, and is not impeached in any manner recognized by the rules of evidence, it is reversible error to permit him to introduce evidence of his general reputation for truth and veracity.

2. SAME. The rule is stated in the opinion, as to when a party will be allowed to corroborate his own testimony by evidence of previous good character.

Error from the District Court of Pawnee County; before Bayard T. Hainer, Trial Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Biddison & Eagleton, for plaintiff in error.

Wrightsman & Fulton and James B. Diggs, for defendant in error.

BURFORD, C. J.:

¶1 The plaintiff in error, the First National Bank of Bartlesville, commenced its action in the probate court of Pawnee county against the defendant in error, George W. Blakeman, to recover judgment upon a promissory note for the stun of $ 349.30, bearing date Jan. 21, 1902, payable to T. J. Milton or order, and purporting to be signed by Geo. W. Blakeman. The note was endorsed by Milton to the plaintiff in error, and, payment being refused after maturity, the bank sued Blakeman as maker of the note. Blakeman denied under oath the execution of the note. The cause went to the district court on appeal for trial de novo. The case was tried to a jury on the sole issue as to the genuineness of the signature of the maker of the note. A number of witnesses testified to the facts relevant to the issue, and the defendant Blakeman testified as a witness in his own behalf, denying unequivocally that he had signed or authorized the signing of the note sued on. No person testified to having seen him sign the note, and the payee, Milton, was not produced as a witness by either party. There was some testimony by experts as to the genuineness of the signature. There was no evidence offered for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of Blakeman, nor was there on cross-examination of Blakeman any attempt made to show that he had made contradictory statements, or that he had committed any criminal or immoral acts. No evidence was offered attacking his general reputation for truth and veracity. During the trial the defense offered several witnesses, and, after qualifying them as character witnesses, they were permitted to testify, over the objection and exception of the plaintiff, that the reputation of Blakeman for truth and veracity was good in the neighborhood in which he lived. The case was submitted to the jury, and verdict returned in favor of the defendant Blakeman. The bank filed a motion for new trial, in which it alleged as error the ruling of the court in admitting the evidence of the general reputation of the defendant. The motion was overruled, and judgment rendered for the defendant. The bank appeals, and assigns as error the overruling of its motion for new trial.

¶2 But one question is presented or argued by counsel for plaintiff in error. The sole question for our determination is: Was it reversible error for the court to permit the defendant, whose, character had not been attacked, to introduce evidence of his general reputation for truth and veracity? The plaintiff in error insists upon the extreme rule that it is never permissible to offer evidence of general reputation unless the general character for truth and veracity is attacked by the adverse party, while the defendant in error insists upon the other extreme, that anything which tends to discredit the testimony of a witness is an impeachment of the witness, and entitles him to offer testimony in support of his general reputation for truthfulness. Both parties are sustained by respectable authority, but we think neither of them suggests the safe rule. The question as to when and under what conditions a witness may be corroborated by evidence of general good character is one that has been as much discussed by text writers and jurists, and upon which there is as irreconcilable confusion, as many others found in the books in this country of many jurisdictions. This court has never been called upon to adopt a rule on the subject, and we feel it our duty to explore the field fully and select the path which seems to lead to the most logical and beneficial results. It is useless to attempt to reconcile the many judicial decisions upon the main subject and its related branches; nor would it be profitable to make a critical review of them. There are a few general principles which pervade all the adjudicated cases, and these have been carefully stated and learnedly considered by the eminent text writers on evidence, and we may safely base our conclusions upon a consideration of their labors. One of our earliest American writers upon the law of evidence, and one whom every lawyer and jurist of today venerates, Prof. Greenleaf, in vol. 3. sec. 469, (15th ed.) of his work, says:

"Where evidence of contradictory statements by a witness, or of other particular facts, as for example, that he has been committed to the house of correction, is afforded by way of impeaching his veracity, his general character for truth being thus in some sort put in issue, it has been deemed reasonable to admit general evidence that he is a man of strict integrity and scrupulous regard for truth. But evidence that he has on other occasions made statements similar to what he has testified in the cause is not admissible unless where a design to misrepresent is charged upon the witness in consequence of his relating to the party or to the cause, in which case it seems it may be proper to show that he made a similar statement before the relation existed. So, if the character of a deceased attesting witness to a deed or will is impeached on the ground of fraud, evidence of his general good character is admissible. But mere contradiction among witnesses examined in court supplies no ground for admitting general evidence as to character."

¶3 We find the subject thus discussed in Underhill on Evidence, sec. 352: "The direct impeachment of a witness by any of the means which have been above explained creates an issue respecting his general character for truthfulness. Evidence to support this and to show that he is a person in whose testimony the jury may have confidence is, therefore, relevant. But evidence of reputation is not relevant merely because there is a contradiction between adverse witnesses, or because the credibility of a witness is shaken on cross-examination, though its admission in such cases may not be reversible error. A distinction has sometimes been made by which it has been held that general evidence of the character of the witness for truthfulness is not relevant if he was impeached merely by showing that he had made contradictory statements: This distinction is repudiated by a majority of the decisions which support the proposition that general evidence of the character of the witness as a truthful person is always admissible whenever any attempt, though it may have been unsuccessful, has been made to impeach it, as for example, where another witness is asked what is his character for truth and replies it is good."

¶4 In Jones on Evidence, vol. 3, sec. 870, the author, in discussing this question, says: "While it is clear that a direct attack upon the reputation of a witness admits evidence to sustain his credibility, the question whether such evidence is rendered admissible by collateral attack is involved in more difficulty. It has sometimes been held that, if it appears from the cross-examination of a witness that he has been guilty of immoral conduct or charged with a criminal offense, he may be sustained by evidence of good character for truth. So it was held that, when a witness was assailed by evidence that he had been suborned and paid for his testimony, his good character for veracity might be shown. So the same class of testimony has been received in an action on an insurance policy where the defendant had sought to prove that the plaintiff had burned his building and made false proofs of loss, and in an action for forgery where the defendant sought to prove that a witness for the state had himself committed the forgery, proof of the good character of such witness was a allowed. As we have seen, although it is held in some of the cases that answers on cross-examinations which tend to disparage the character of the witness are sufficient to render admissible sustaining evidence of his good character, and although there is considerable authority in the decisions to support this view, the practice would undoubtedly lead to great confusion and the multiplicity of collateral issues unless carefully guarded by the discretion of the trial judge. It is well settled that, when either by cross-examination or other evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime, his good reputation for truth since such conviction may be shown. And such testimony is not received where it appears that the witness was acquitted or merely...