Keith v. State
| Citation | 152 S.W. 1029,127 Tenn. 40 |
| Parties | KEITH v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 01 February 1913 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Tennessee |
Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; E. L. Davis, Judge.
Claude Keith was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Wade Crowley & Lawson, of Smithville, for appellant.
Charles T. Cates, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.
In this case plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to a term of 20 years in the state penitentiary, for killing one L. E. Smithson, to reverse which judgment he has appealed to this court. We are fully satisfied of his guilt under the facts as proven in the record, and that all of the errors assigned are without merit.
In the present opinion we shall refer to only one of the law points involved. There was evidence introduced on the trial, which was treated by counsel on both sides, and by the trial judge and by both counsel here, as a putting in issue by the plaintiff in error of his character for peace, quietness, and good order. We shall accordingly treat the evidence in the same manner, although, if we had any substantial doubt of the guilt of the prisoner, we might find in this evidence grounds of distinction sufficient for a reversal, but for Acts 1911 c. 32. So treating the evidence, his honor instructed the jury, in substance, that when the defendant in a criminal case puts his character in issue, it is a witness for him if a good character, and a witness against him if a bad character. The objection made here by counsel for the prisoner is to the last clause; that is, as to what was said on the subject of bad character.
This was held a proper charge in Lea v. State, 94 Tenn. 495, 29 S.W. 900. However, it must be conceded that in that case the special point to which the mind of the court was directed was that the character must be such as the plaintiff in error had exhibited prior to the commission of the offense charged. But the soundness of the general proposition was treated by the court as indubitable. The case of State v. Collins, 5 Pennewill (Del.) 263, 62 A. 224, is in substantial accord.
After all, it simply means that the character, when put in issue is a circumstance or fact, to be considered in connection with all the other facts in the case, in endeavoring to reach a conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the party charged. One who has a good character for peace, quietness, and good order is not so likely to bring on a difficulty, or be guilty of an overt act of violence, as one of, the opposite character. If character were not permitted to have weight when bad, as well as when good, there would be no sound reason for the rule that the character of the accused cannot be put in issue in a criminal case, except by himself. If it be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Lentine v. State Board of Health
...... board is not sufficient to prove him a man of "bad moral. character." "Character" is defined to be the. peculiar qualities impressed by nature or habit on a person,. which distinguishes him from others. Cox v. Strickland, 101 Ga. 482; Berneker v. State, 40. Neb. 810; Keith v. State, 152 S.W. 1029, 127 Tenn. 40; Greer v. Active, etc., 99 Conn. 266;. Feibelman v. Fire Ins. Co., 108 Ala. 180; Glove. v. State, 200 Ala. 384; Harrison v. Lakenan, . 189 Mo. 601. (6) The law presumes that relator has a good. character. State v. Reed, 250 Mo. 388. (7) The. ......
-
Brooks v. State
...... Tenn. 76] When and to what extent this cross examination may. be indulged in has been dealt with in Zanone v. State, 97 Tenn. 101, 36 S.W. 711, 35 L.R.A. 556;. Ryan v. State, 97 Tenn. 206, 36 S.W. 930; Powers. v. State, 117 Tenn. 363, 97 S.W. 815;. [213 S.W.2d 11] Keith v. State, 127 Tenn. 40, 152 S.W. 1029, 1930, where this Court said that the rule that 'where. the prisoner is a witness in his own behalf, * * * on cross. examination, he may, for the purpose of affecting his credit as. a witness, be questioned about special acts of moral. turpitude.' This is ......
-
Morrison v. State
...reasonable inference is that a man will generally act in accordance with his character. It is the law of his life.' Keith v. State, 127 Tenn. 40, 44, 152 S.W. 1029, 1030.' There are several other cases in this State which stand for the proposition that character evidence is admissible by th......
-
Davis v. the Tennessean
...as shown by his habits, through the manifestation of which his general reputation, good or otherwise, is obtained. Keith v. State, 127 Tenn. 40, 152 S.W. 1029 (1913). The claim shows on its face that the claimant is a convicted murderer worthy of death. Therefore, neither his reputation nor......