Gertz v. Fitchburg R. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1884 |
| Citation | 137 Mass. 77 |
| Parties | William II. Gertz v. Fitchburg Railroad Company |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk. Tort, for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while in the defendant's employ. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., the jury returned a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions to the exclusion of certain evidence, which appears in the opinion.
Exceptions sustained.
J. J Myers, for the plaintiff.
C. A Welch, for the defendant.
In this case, the plaintiff having testified as a witness, the defendant put in evidence the record of his conviction in 1876, in the United States District Court, of the crime of falsely personating a United States revenue officer. The plaintiff then offered evidence of his character and present reputation for veracity, which was excluded, subject to his exception.
We think that the evidence of his reputation for truth should have been admitted, and that the exception must be sustained. There is a clear distinction between this case and those in which such evidence has been held inadmissible, for instance, to rebut evidence of contradictory statements; Russell v. Coffin, 8 Pick. 143; Brown v. Mooers, 6 Gray 451; or where the witness is directly contradicted as to the principal fact by other witnesses. Atwood v. Dearborn, 1 Allen 483.
In such cases, it is true that the result sought to be reached is the same as in the present, -- to induce the jury to disbelieve the witness. But the mode of reaching the result is different. For, while contradiction or proof of contradictory statements may very well have the incidental effect of impeaching the character for truth of the contradicted witness in the minds of the jury, the proof is not directed to that point. The purpose and only direct effect of the evidence are to show that the witness is not to be believed in this instance. But the reason why he is not to be believed is left untouched. That may be found in forgetfulness on the part of the witness, or in his having been deceived, or in any other possible cause. The disbelief sought to be produced is perfectly consistent with an admission of his general good character for truth, as well as for the other virtues; and until the character of a witness is assailed, it cannot be fortified by evidence.
On the other hand, when it is proved that a witness has been convicted of a crime, the only ground for disbelieving him which such proof affords is the general readiness to do evil which the conviction may be supposed to show. It is from that general disposition alone that the jury is asked to infer a readiness to lie in the particular case, and thence that he has lied in fact. The evidence has no tendency to prove that he was mistaken, but only that he has perjured himself, and it reaches that conclusion solely through the general proposition that he is of bad character and unworthy of credit. 1 Gilb. Ev. (6th ed.) 126.
The conviction in the United States District Court was for a felony punishable with imprisonment (U. S. St. of March 2, 1867, § 28); and, assuming that it stands on the same footing as a conviction in another State, it would have been admissible, according to the dicta in our cases, independently of statute, not to exclude the witness, but to impeach his credit. Commonwealth v. Green, 17 Mass. 515, 541. Commonwealth v. Knapp, 9 Pick. 496, 511. Utley v. Merrick, 11 Met. 302. See Rev. Sts. c. 94, § 56. And when a conviction is admitted for that purpose, it always may be rebutted by evidence of good character for truth. Commonwealth v. Green, ubi supra. Russell v. Coffin, 8 Pick. 143, 154. Rex v. Clarke, 2 Stark. 241. Webb v. State, 29 Ohio St. 351.
It is true that a doubt is thrown...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wheeler, S021961
...P.2d 111; People v. White (1904) 142 Cal. 292, 294, 75 P. 828; People v. Carolan (1886) 71 Cal. 195, 196, 12 P. 52; Gertz v. Fitchburg Railroad (1884) 137 Mass. 77, 78), and this inference is not limited to conduct which resulted in a felony conviction. While the trial court may weigh proff......
-
Com. v. Sheline
...witness's good character for truthfulness cannot be introduced unless his character for truthfulness has been attacked. Gertz v. Fitchburg R.R., 137 Mass. 77, 78 (1884). Commonwealth v. Grammo, 8 Mass.App.Ct. 447, 455, 395 N.E.2d 476 (1979). The defendant's character for truthfulness was no......
-
People v. Thomas
...is asked to infer a readiness to lie in a particular case, and thence that he has lied in fact.' " (Ibid., quoting Gertz v. Fitchburg Railroad (1884) 137 Mass. 77, 78, emphasis in Refusing to hold that only offenses involving an element of dishonesty reflect adversely on a witness' veracity......
-
State v. Rivera
...a disposition alone supports an inference of a "readiness to [prevaricate] in ... [this] particular case...." Gertz v. Fitchburg R. Co., 137 Mass. 77, 78 (1884) (Holmes, J.).' State v. Nardini, [187 Conn. 513,] 523-24[, 447 A.2d 396 (1982) ]." Id. Furthermore, while crimes such as narcotics......
-
The Liar's Mark: Character and Forfeiture in Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a) (2).
...and to override doubts of the basic relevancy of the evidence."). (40.) Simon-Kerr, supra note 10, at 155. (41.) Gertz v. Fitchburg R.R., 137 Mass. 77,78 (42.) A misdemeanor fraud conviction, for example, would be mandatorily admissible under Rule 609(a)(2) even though misdemeanor convictio......