Lawrence v. United States
| Decision Date | 22 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 7604.,7604. |
| Parties | LAWRENCE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
R. R. Brewster, of Kansas City, Mo. (O. E. Gorman, of Springfield, Mo., and William B. Bostian, of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
William L. Vandeventer, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Roscoe C. Patterson, U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for the United States.
Before LEWIS and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, District Judge.
Charles Johnson and Charles Lawrence were indicted, tried, and convicted for a violation of the Act of February 13, 1913, 37 Stat. 670 (U. S. Comp. St. § 8603), to wit, with unlawfully having in their possession 60 bags of sugar, which had been stolen from an interstate shipment, knowing the same to have been stolen. From the judgment and sentence of conviction, Lawrence sued out a writ of error.
The first assignment of error is predicated upon certain matters elicited over objection during the cross-examination of the defendant Lawrence, testifying as a witness in his own behalf. The record on this point is as follows:
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
It is well settled by the decisions in this circuit that evidence of the conviction of a crime for the purpose of affecting the credibility of a witness should be limited to a conviction of a felony, an infamous crime, or a crime involving moral turpitude. Glover v. U. S. (C. C. A. 8) 147 F. 426, 429, 8 Ann. Cas. 1184; Neal v. U. S. (C. C. A. 8) 1 F. (2d) 637, 639; Haussener v. U. S. (C. C. A. 8) 4 F.(2d) 884, 887. Counsel for Lawrence, by his objection, asked the court to limit the question to such an offense. This the court refused to do, and as a result the defendant was required to testify that he had been convicted of two misdemeanors, neither of which were infamous nor involved moral turpitude. Section 3519, R. S. Mo. 1919; State v. Gallagher, 126 Mo. App. 729, 730, 106 S. W. 111; Section 1862, R. S. Mo. 1899. This was error. Haussener v. U. S., supra...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Laister-Kauffmann A. Corp.
...purposes. Glover v. United States, 8 Cir., 147 F. 426, 8 Ann.Cas. 1184; Edwards v. United States, 8 Cir., 18 F.2d 402; Lawrence v. United States, 8 Cir., 18 F.2d 407; Middleton v. United States, 8 Cir., 49 F. 2d 538; Little v. United States, 8 Cir., 93 F.2d 401. Respondent points out circum......
-
Arnold v. United States
...U. S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed. 624; In re Bartos, 8 Cir., 19 F.2d 722; Lee Kwong Nom et al. v. U. S., 2 Cir., 20 F.2d 470; Lawrence v. U. S., 8 Cir., 18 F.2d 407; Weisflog et al. v. U. S., 8 Cir., 291 F. 339; Hendricks v. People, 78 Colo. 264, 241 P. 734; Davis v. People, 77 Colo. 546, 2......
-
Bostic v. United States
...v. State, supra; Arhart v. Stark, 6 Misc. 579, 27 N.Y.S. 301; Meredith v. Whillock, 173 Mo.App. 542, 158 S.W. 1061. In Lawrence v. United States, 8 Cir., 18 F.2d 407, cited by appellant, the common-law rule was followed. The court said: "It is well settled by the decisions in this eighth ci......
-
Rizzo v. United States
...v. United States (8th Cir. 1906), 147 F. 426. See Echert v. United States (8th Cir. 1951), 188 F.2d 336, 337, and Lawrence v. United States (8th Cir. 1927), 18 F.2d 407. See also cases cited in 20 A.L.R.2d 1425. In the case of Michelson v. United States (1948), 335 U.S. 469, p. 482, 69 S.Ct......