McKeone v. People
| Decision Date | 01 December 1882 |
| Citation | 6 Colo. 346 |
| Parties | McKEONE v. THE PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court of Lake County.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr LOUIS BRANSON, for plaintiff in error.
CHARLESS H. TOLL, Attorney General, for the people.
The defense in this case undertakes to establish an alibi. No effort is made by defendant to show justification, or to explain the circumstances surrounding the transaction. The only testimony as to the assault is that of the prosecuting witness O'Neal, and he is uncontradicted, save as to the question of identity. This testimony establishes an unprovoked, premeditated and inhuman attempt to assassinate him.
O'Neal is the first witness. At the time of his cross-examination no controversy or uncertainty appeared in the case, even as to defendant's identity with the assailant. Yet on this cross-examination an effort was made to draw from him testimony as to the number of his employees at the time of the attempt upon his life, and his quarrels and difficulties with them. We think this evidence was properly rejected. If it ever became material, certainly at that stage of the trial it was not. When a deliberate and malicious attempt is made to take the life of a human being, and there is no pretense of justification on the ground of self-defense, it would be a dangerous and unreasonable doctrine that would allow the assailant to show quarrels and difficulties of his victim with third persons in no way connected with the transaction. And it would be equally unreasonable, in a case like this, to allow evidence as to the general reputation or character of the person assailed with reference to his fighting quarrelsome or dangerous disposition. Such evidence is admissible only when it is claimed that defendant took life, or made the attempt to do so, under reasonable apprehension that he was in imminent danger of receiving at the hands of his adversary death or great bodily harm, and that it was necessary to fire the shot, or strike the blow, to avert the danger. The evidence of Miller and Richardson at a subsequent period in the trial, bearing upon the character of O'Neal in these respects, was properly excluded.
The defendant was sworn as a witness, and testified in his own behalf. Having elected to do this, under our statute (Session Laws 1881, p. 114) he occupied precisely the same position as any other witness. He could be cross-examined; contradictory evidence could be offered in rebuttal, and he could be impeached; or his credibility could be attacked in any of the methods recognized by the rules of evidence as applicable to the testimony of ordinary witnesses. On cross-examination he was interrogated concerning a certain affidavit previously made by him, and this affidavit was admitted as a part of his cross-examination. The matters therein contained had no connection with or relevancy to the issues before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kent
... ... was the ground upon which the objection was rested in the ... case of Brandon v. People, 42 N.Y. 268, and the ... latter case was distinguished in Peo. v. Brown, 72 ... N.Y. 571. The defendant was privileged from answering as to ... v. Bussy, 82 Mich. 49; Thomas ... v. State, 103 Ind. 419; State v. Clinton, 67 ... Mo. 380; Peo. v. Rozelle, 78 Cal. 84; McKeone v ... Peo., 6 Colo. 346; State v. Phelps, 59 N.W ... 471. When the defendant is under cross-examination he may be ... interrogated as to ... ...
-
State v. Shockley
...People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229, 21 Am. Dec. 122; Frank v. State, [Wis.], 68 N.W. 657; State v. Ober, 52 N.H. 459, 13 Am. Rep. 88; McKeone v. People, 6 Colo. 346; Connors v. People, 50 N.Y. 240; Commonwealth Tolliver, 119 Mass. 312; Mitchell v. The State, 94 Ala. 68, 10 So. 518.) Many other a......
-
State v. Pancoast
...73 Mich. 10, 40 N. W. 789;State v. Ober, 13 Am. Rep. 88; People v. Courtney, 31 Hun, 199; Chambers v. People, 105 Ill. 409;McKeone v. People, 6 Colo. 346;Fralich v. People, 65 Barb. 48;State v. Wentworth, 65 Me. 234;Hanoff v. State, 37 Ohio St. 180;State v. Pfefferle, 36 Kan. 90, 12 Pac. 40......
-
State v. Hayward
... ... Hoberg v. State, 3 Minn. 181, (262); Shaffner v ... Com., 72 Pa. 60; State v. Lapage, 57 N.H. 245; ... People v. Corbin, 56 N.Y. 363; Coleman v ... People, 55 N.Y. 81; Snyder v. Com., 85 Pa. 519; ... Barton v. State, 18 Oh. 221; Coble v ... and could not be contradicted. Haley v. State, 63 ... Ala. 83; People v. McKeller, 53 Cal. 65; McKeone ... v. People, 6 Colo. 346; State v. Cokely, 4 ... Iowa, 477; People v. Ware, 29 Hun, 473, S. C., ... 92 N.Y. 653; Rosenweig v. People, 63 ... ...