Lee v. State
| Decision Date | 18 March 1899 |
| Citation | 50 S.W. 516,66 Ark. 286 |
| Parties | LEE v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division ROBERT J. LEA Judge.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
T. J Oliphint, for appellant.
It was error to allow the state to impeach defendant's witnesses by showing that certain ones of their families and kinsmen were felons. It was error to allow the prosecuting attorney to comment on this in argument. 58 Ark. 368.
Jeff Davis, Attorney General, and Chas. Jacobson, for appellant.
The question as to argument of prosecuting attorney, being raised here for the first time, will not be considered. The limits within which either party may cross-examine on matters not strictly relevant, but which affect the credibility of a witness, is largely discretionary with the court; and, to warrant a reversal, this discretion must be abused. Undh. Cr Ev. § 221 and cases on p. 272; 1 N.Y. 379; 5 Gratt. 664; 16 Mich. 43; 58 Ark. 478; 45 Ark. 309. .
William Lee was indicted by a grand jury of the Pulaski circuit court for grand larceny, alleged to have been committed by feloniously stealing, taking and carrying away one cow the property of John Saul, was convicted, and his punishment was assessed at one year's imprisonment in the penitentiary. In his trial evidence was adduced by the state tending to prove his guilt, and by him witnesses were introduced whose testimony tended to prove the falsity of the state's evidence, and to show that the principal witness who testified against him was unworthy of belief. Among these witnesses were Jemina Forbus, Jane Lee and John Lee. The state impeached their credibility. The prosecuting attorney was allowed, over the objections of the defendant, to ask Jemina Forbus the following questions: "Are you the mother of Rufe Lee, and was he not in the penitentiary for perjury, committed while testifying in a case against him for burning Wash Robinson's barn?" "Were you the mother of John Lee, and had he not served a term in the penitentiary for killing a man?" "Were you the mother of Dick Forbus, and was he serving in the penitentiary for stealing a cow?" All of which she answered in the affirmative. Similar questions were asked Jane and John Lee, over the objections of the defendant, and were answered in the affirmative.
This mode of impeachment was improper, and the testimony elicited was inadmissible. Witnesses may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. State
...272; 49 Ark. 156; 58 Ark. 277; 1 Greenleaf, Ev. § 375. Nor can it be proved by proof of association with felons. 58 Ark. 473; 46 Ark. 141; 66 Ark. 286; 56 Ark. 25 Ark. 89; 69 Ark. 648; 69 Ark. 653. It was error to refuse to permit appellant to introduce testimony as to the dangerous charact......
-
Wawak And Vaught v. State
...however, on which it was proper to ask the witness about the confinement of her father in the penitentiary. In the case of Lee v. State, 66 Ark. 286, 50 S.W. 516, witness was asked if her son had not been sent to the penitentiary, and she answered in the affirmative. In holding that the cro......
-
Wawak v. State
...however, on which it was proper to ask the witness about the confinement of her father in the penitentiary. In the case of Lee v. State, 66 Ark. 286, 50 S. W. 516, a witness was asked if her son had not been sent to the penitentiary, and she answered in the affirmative. In holding that the ......
-
Templeton v. United States, 10042.
...is relevant because the association is voluntary; but we are confronted here with no such case. The following excerpt from Lee v. State, 66 Ark. 286, 50 S.W. 516, 517, is pointedly "This mode of impeachment was improper, and the testimony elicited was inadmissible. Witnesses may be impeache......