Keator v. People
| Decision Date | 19 October 1875 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Andrus B. Keator v. The People |
Heard October 13, 1875
Error to Ingham Circuit.
Conviction affirmed.
M. V Montgomery, for plaintiff in error.
Andrew J. Smith, Attorney General, for the People.
Keator was convicted of perjury, and the case comes up on questions raised upon exceptions taken at the trial.
One Meracle having been introduced as a witness for respondent, evidence was given to impeach his character for veracity. Jesse Hurd was allowed to testify to his bad reputation in the town of Blackman, where he resided in 1870, and until early in 1871 (being four years previous to the trial). He swore that he knew it, and that it was bad, and that he would not from such reputation believe Meracle on oath.
The time is certainly somewhat remote, but the witness showed by his own testimony that he had not any very long residence in any one place, and that his residence at and near Blackman was as long as any other, and that he thereafter left the state for over a year, returning in June, 1872. His arrest in this case was less than a year after his return. We think that under such circumstances it was not improper to allow a larger range of inquiry than would be proper where there had been a more fixed domicile, and that the testimony was not too remote.--Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 173.
In the case of Hamilton v. People, we had occasion to discuss the question whether it was proper to allow an inquiry if the impeaching witness from the evil reputation of the impeached witness would believe him under oath. We there held it proper on cross-examination; but we think the same reasons render it proper also on direct examination, as it is as certainly as proper to lay before the jury all that directly bears on the impeachment without cross-examination as with it. We do not think it necessary to repeat the grounds which were there discussed, and which, in our opinion, vindicate the rule of the English and of many American cases against what we deem an incorrect doctrine of Mr. Greenleaf to the contrary.
The criticism that it does not appear distinctly that Hurd's opinion of Meracle's credibility on oath refers to 1871, is not, we think, well taken. He swears that from Meracle's reputation, concerning which he had testified, he would not believe him on oath. If that was the basis of his opinion, his present opinion after reflection would be quite as admissible as his former one, and he was not cross-examined as to any change of views.
It is also objected that the information alleges that the oath of Keator was administered by Alexander D. Crane, circuit judge, whereas the proofs showed it to have been administered by one R. D. Knowles, acting as deputy clerk, but whose official character, it is claimed, was not proven.
As it appeared Knowles was acting openly in the circuit court which must have had judicial knowledge of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Walker
...upon by him did not support his statement. In that case the evidence was held admissible. This ruling was thereafter followed in Keator v. People, 32 Mich. 484, and People v. Ryder, 151 Mich. 187, 190, 114 N.W. 1021. In Ford v. Ford, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 92, 101, the Supreme Court of Tennessee ......
-
State v. Bouchard
... ... Wakefield, 118 Cal. 107, 50 P. 310; Mitchell v ... State, 148 Ala. 618, 42 So. 1014; Bullard v ... Lambert, 40 Ala. 204; Spies v. People, 122 Ill ... 1, 3 Am. St. 320, 12 N.E. 865, 17 N.E. 898; Knight v ... House, 29 Md. 194, 96 Am. Dec. 515; Keator v ... People, 32 Mich. 484; ... ...
-
State v. Goodrich
...84 Minn. 168, 87 N.W. 363, 88 N.W. 252; Lindsey v. Bates, 223 Mo. 294, 122 S.W. 682; Smith v. Hine, 179 Pa. 203, 36 A. 222; Keator v. People, 32 Mich. 484; Chance Indianapolis etc. Road Co., 32 Ind. 472; Young v. Commonwealth, 6 Bush (Ky.), 312.) Improper impeachment of appellant's witness,......
-
State v. Hooker
...but the implication that the same rule would apply to the direct examination will be noted, and in the later case of Keator v. People, 32 Mich. 484, 485, 486, the eminent jurist says: 'In the case of Hamilton v. People , we had occasion to discuss the question whether it was proper to allow......