Henry v. State
| Decision Date | 11 December 1911 |
| Parties | HENRY v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
On cross-examination a witness may be asked any question the answer to which would tend to test his means of knowledge his intelligence, the reliability of his memory, or his bias prejudice, or interest in the case.
An instruction is improper which directs a jury that, if they find from the testimony that any witness has willfully testified falsely as to any material fact in the case, they are at liberty to disregard the testimony of such witness except in so far as the same may be corroborated by other credible evidence; the true rule being that the jury are the exclusive judges of the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence, and the value to be given to their testimony, and they may, if they think proper, reject the whole of the testimony of such witness, who they may find has willfully testified falsely to a material fact, or may give it such weight where it has been corroborated by credible evidence as they may deem it entitled to have.
Appeal from Superior Court, Oklahoma County; Edward D. Oldfield Judge.
Newton Henry was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Forrest L. Hughes and Moman Pruiett, for appellant.
Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
First. Appellant, the deceased, and Lucy Carrington, the prosecuting witness, were all negroes and were acquainted with each other prior to the date of the homicide. In the city of Oklahoma in what is called "Packingtown," there is a negro hotel which had been conducted by the prosecuting witness, but which at the time of the homicide was being conducted by appellant. The state proved that on the day of the homicide Charles Lucas was at this hotel for his washing; that while there a difficulty arose in which he lost his life at the hands of appellant. There was only one witness to the homicide besides appellant; that was Lucy Carrington. Her testimony, if believed by the jury, made out a case of murder. When she was on the stand testifying in behalf of the state, for the purpose of showing her interest in the trial and thereby affecting her credibility, counsel for appellant attempted upon cross-examination to prove that said witness was a married woman, was living separate and apart from her husband, and that for three weeks prior to the homicide she has been living with the deceased and occupying a bedroom with him as his wife. All this was objected to by counsel for the state upon the ground that it was not proper cross-examination. This objection was by the court sustained, to which counsel for appellant excepted.
The reason why the Constitution of the state provides that in all criminal cases the accused must be confronted by the witnesses who testify against him is that the defendant may exercise the right of cross-examination. The right of confrontation is given for the purpose of enabling a defendant to test the means of knowledge of a witness, his intelligence, the reliability of his memory, and his bias prejudice, or interest in the case. The right of proper cross-examination is everywhere recognized as one of the most important and valuable rights possessed by a defendant and is just as important to him as the right to examine a witness against him in chief is to the state. Necessarily the object of cross-examination is to break...
To continue reading
Request your trial