Hill v. State
| Decision Date | 26 May 1892 |
| Citation | 19 S.W. 674,91 Tenn. 521 |
| Parties | Hill v. State. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Carroll county; John R. Bond, Judge.
Ruf Hill was convicted of carrying a pistol, and he prosecutes a writ of error. Reversed.
Plaintiff in error was convicted in the circuit court of Carroll county for carrying a pistol. Under the recent statute, he went on the witness stand, and testified in his own behalf. On cross-examination he was asked and required to answer, over objection, "if he had not been charged with stealing money from a negro in Huntingdon, and if he did not pay him back the money." He answered that he "had been charged with stealing money from a negro in Huntingdon, and had given the negro some money to stop the matter;" that "he did not steal the money," but compromised the matter by paying some money, because "he did not want his father to hear of the charge." Touching this evidence the record recites: "The court here stated to the jury that they would only look to the question as to the charge against the witness, as affecting his credibility as a witness, and they would attach such weight to it as in their judgment it might be entitled to." The action of the trial judge was erroneous, both with respect to the form of the question and as to the effect to be given the answer.
1. The question was incompetent, and should have been rejected or ambiguity, in that it did not state whether the charges inquired about had been preferred in judicial proceeding, or by indictment of grand jury, or were the mere personal accusation of some individual. If the latter was meant, the inquiry was improper, for reasons too obvious to require enumeration. As tending to disgrace a witness, or show his unreliability, he may, with propriety be asked if he has not been indicted for an infamous crime as in the case of Brasswell v. State, 3 Leg. Rep. 283; but that rule does not justify the question propounded in this case. Great as the latitude of cross-examination is it does not warrant the investigation of mere personal imputations, which may be easily instigated and multiplied by unscrupulous persons to the injury or destruction of any witness.
2. Instead of instructing the jury as he did with reference to this evidence, the court should have told them that, inasmuch as the defendant denied the truth of the charge of larceny they should not, for any purpose, consider the fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. State
...same manner as any other witness. Brooks v. State, 187 Tenn. 67, 213 S.W.2d 7; Powers v. State, 117 Tenn. 363, 97 S.W. 815; Hill v. State, 91 Tenn. 521, 19 S.W. 674; Turner v. State, 89 Tenn. 547, 562, 15 S.W. 838; Peck v. State, 86 Tenn. 259, 6 S.W. 389; Morgan v. State, 86 Tenn. 472, 7 S.......
-
Zanone v. State
...for offenses involving moral turpitude, the cases permit them to be asked about. Braswell v. State, 3 Leg. Rep. (Tenn.) 283; Hill v. State, supra. The case at bar presents the as to what scope should be allowed on the cross-examination of witnesses touching their character; and, after a car......
-
Ryan v. State
... ... but will only tend to disgrace him, or to expose his ... unreliability as a witness, he may be compelled to answer, ... and that under this rule it was competent to ask the witness ... if he had not been indicted for counterfeiting. This rule was ... reaffirmed by this court in Hill v. State, 91 Tenn ... 521, 19 S.W. 674. There was no error in asking the witness, ... on cross-examination, if he had not been indicted for other ... felonies and misdemeanors; and, upon objection from ... defendant's counsel that the best evidence should be ... offered, it was competent to ... ...