Hendrix v. State

• Decision Date: 09 January 1911
• Citation: 113 P. 244,4 Okla.Crim. 611,1911 OK CR 7
• Parties: HENDRIX v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

113 P. 244

4 Okla.Crim. 611, 1911 OK CR 7

HENDRIX v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

January 9, 1911

Syllabus by the Court.

For the purpose of affecting the credibility of a witness, he may be asked as to whether or not he has ever been convicted for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law of the state; but it is improper to ask him as to whether or not he has been arrested, imprisoned, or indicted for any offense whatever before conviction.

An instruction that the jury may disregard the entire testimony of any witness whom they believe to have testified falsely to any material fact, and which leaves out of consideration the question whether such false testimony was willfully and knowingly given, is erroneous.

Appeal from Caddo County Court; B. F. Holden, Judge.

Philip Hendrix was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed.

C. H Carswell, for appellant.

Fred S Caldwell, for the State.

FURMAN P.J.

First. Upon the trial of this case when the defendant was upon the witness stand, the state was permitted on cross-examination for the purpose of affecting the credibility of the witness to prove that he had previously been convicted for violating the prohibitory liquor law of the state. In the case of Slater v. United States, 1 Okl. Cr. R. 275, 98 P 110, this court held that, upon cross-examination for the purpose of affecting the credibility of a witness, he may be asked if he had ever been convicted of a felony or of any crime which involves a want of moral character, but it is improper to ask such witness if he had ever been indicted arrested, or imprisoned before conviction for any offense whatever. Under this ruling, it would have been error to have asked the witness if he had ever been indicted, arrested, or imprisoned for any offense whatever; but to prove that he had been convicted of a felony or of any crime which involves a want of moral character goes directly to his credibility as a witness, and it is therefore proper. For the reasons supporting this distinction, see Slater v. United States, hereinbefore quoted.

The illegal sale of intoxicating liquor, wrongfully and deliberately committed, is an immoral, degrading, and degraded act, and is committed only by the lawless and unreliable classes of our population. It is a matter of common notoriety that in nine cases out of ten the "bootlegger" will not only not hesitate to commit perjury in...