Lea v. State
| Decision Date | 02 March 1895 |
| Citation | 29 S.W. 900 |
| Parties | LEA v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Wilson county; W. C. Houston, Judge.
Sam Lea, convicted of petit larceny, appeals. Reversed.
Thompson & Cantrell, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.
Sam Lea was convicted of the crime of petit larceny, and has appealed in error. After testifying in his own behalf, he introduced three witnesses as to his general character. All of these witnesses said, upon examination in chief, that they knew the defendant's character, and that it was good up to the time of this charge; and they likewise said, on cross-examination, that his character is bad since this charge, and that they would not now give him credit on his oath, though they would have done so before this charge was brought against him. With respect to that testimony the circuit judge instructed the jury as follows: This instruction would be correct in the ordinary case in which the witnesses speaking in regard to the defendant's character are confined to that character as existing at the time the charge was made against him, but it is erroneous when applied to testimony with respect to his character both before and after the charge was made, as in this case. The defendant's character, whether good or bad, since the charge, cannot affect the question of his guilt or innocence of the crime imputed to him. His character since the charge may well go to his credibility as a witness in his own behalf, because existing at the time he testifies; but it does not reach or illustrate the question of his guilt or innocence. Lea's counsel sought to have the proper distinction made by the following request: "The character of the defendant before the present charge can be looked to as a witness for or against him as to his guilt; but his character since then can only be looked to in determining the amount of credit due him as a witness, and cannot be looked to as a witness as to guilt or innocence." The instruction thus requested was erroneously refused. The record shows that the trial of this case in the court below occupied two days; and the only entry...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Keisker's Estate
...was the equivalent of a loan to the maker of the notes. In support of this argument appellant cites Drake v. Crane, 127 Mo. 85, l. c. 103, 29 S.W. 900, and other cases. In Drake v. Crane this court was the investment powers of testamentary trustees. In the other cases cited the question aro......
-
United States v. Lewis, 24875.
...trial. See State v. Sprague, 64 N.J.L. 419, 45 A. 788, 790 (1900); State v. Holly, 155 N.C. 485, 71 S.E. 450, 453 (1911); Lea v. State, 94 Tenn. 495, 29 S.W. 900 (1895); Mohler v. Commonwealth, 132 Va. 713, 111 S.E. 454, 461-462 (1922). That is when the accused testifies and, of course, the......
-
In re Keisker's Estate, 38108.
...was the equivalent of a loan to the maker of the notes. In support of this argument appellant cites Drake v. Crane, 127 Mo. 85, l.c. 103, 29 S.W. 900, and other cases. In Drake v. Crane this court was considering the investment powers of testamentary trustees. In the other cases cited the q......
-
United States v. Davis
...v. Same, 2 Tenn.Cas. 616; Buxton v. Same, 89 Tenn. 216, 14 S.W. 480; Lancaster v. Same, 91 Tenn. 267, 286, 18 S.W. 777; Lea v. Same, 94 Tenn. 495, 497, 29 S.W. 900; & M. Jur. Secs. 322, 327. But, like the other, this practice is not binding on the federal courts. We have the direct authorit......