King v. People

Decision Date01 April 1918
Docket Number9241.
Citation64 Colo. 398,172 P. 8
PartiesKING v. PEOPLE.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Error to District Court, Prowers County; A. Watson McHendrie Judge.

Roy King was convicted of larceny, and brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Gordon & Gordon, of Lamar, for plaintiff in error.

Leslie E. Hubbard, Atty. Gen. (J. W. Kelley, of Denver, of counsel) for the People.

GARRIGUES J.

Defendant King was convicted in the district court of Prowers county under an information charging him with the larceny of live stock, the transaction occurring, according to the people's evidence, November 23, 1916, and he brings the case here for review.

The only assignment of error necessary to be considered relates to the attempted impeachment of defendant as a witness in his own behalf, on a matter immaterial to the issue on trial. Defendant when on the witness stand denied in chief that he had taken any part in butchering the animal in question, but testified that he had assisted in butchering a hog. He was then asked: 'Did you at any time butcher any beef?' to which he replied: 'No, sir; I didn't.' On his cross-examination, the following occurred:

'Q. How long has it been now, since you have had any range beef around your place? A. I never had had any. Q. State whether or not, some time in September, 1915, at your house, Miss Effie O'Dell came over there about dusk and if the following conversation in substance didn't take place between you and her: Miss O'Dell came in, and you had just brought in either the whole or a part of the carcass of a beef which had been butchered, and you asked her if she could keep a secret, and she replied that she could. She then asked you where you had gotten the beef, and you said you had butchered a calf and asked her if she would like to have some of it, and she asked you whose it was, and you said that it was House's, and she replied: 'No, thank you; I don't eat stolen meat.' And she then asked you how it came that you had killed it, and you said, 'Oh, we were coming across the prairie and just shot it.' (Objection and exception.) Q. Did you have substantially that conversation with Miss O'Dell? A. No, sir; I didn't. Q. And you didn't have any beef in your house at that time? A. No, sir.'

In rebuttal, for the purpose of impeachment, the state called Miss O'Dell as a witness, who was permitted to testify over defendant's objection, that she had had such a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Young v. Colorado Nat. Bank of Denver
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • October 2, 1961
    ...arose would be equally without impeaching quality. Impeachment of a witness must be upon matter material to the trial. King v. People, 64 Colo. 398, 172 P. 8; McKee v. People, 69 Colo. 580, 195 P. 649; Davis v. Bonebrake, 135 Colo. 506, 313 P.2d 982. What is matter material to the trial? In......
  • Silcott v. People
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1971
    ...1968. This court has often held that the impeachment of a witness must be upon matters material to the issues on trial. King v. People, 64 Colo. 398, 172 P. 8 (1918); and Huggins v. Campbell, 130 Colo. 183, 274 P.2d 324 (1954). Moreover, a witness may not be impeached on cross-examination u......
  • Huggins v. Campbell, 17230
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • September 20, 1954
    ...292, 126 P. 276. It is fundamental that the impeachment of a witness must be upon a matter material to the issue on trial. King v. People, 64 Colo. 398, 172 P. 8. All of this occurred after a direct ruling by the court in chambers to the effect that counsel for respondent could ask petition......
  • Montgomery v. People
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • August 18, 1947
    ... ... right, and to deprive one thereof may result in prejudicial ... error. It is equally true--and all the Colorado decisions ... support the rule--that one may not attack the credibility of ... a witness on either direct or cross-examination upon an ... immaterial matter. King v. People, 64 Colo. 398, 172 ... P. 8; O'Chiato v. People, 73 Colo. 192, 214 P ... 404; Gizewski v. People, 78 Colo. 123, 239 P. 1026 ... Here, in each instance, the questions propounded by ... defendant's counsel on cross-examination were upon ... matters wholly immaterial to any issue in ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT