Morgan v. State

• Decision Date: 14 December 1889
• Citation: 88 Ala. 223,6 So. 761
• Parties: MORGAN v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

6 So. 761

88 Ala. 223

MORGAN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 14, 1889

Appeal from criminal court, Jefferson county; S.E. GREENE, Judge.

W L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

MCCLELLAN J.

Appellant was convicted of an assault with intent to kill. On the trial he testified in his own behalf, and then proved his good character for truth and veracity without objection. This was illegal evidence. If it was offered to generate a doubt of his guilt, or to solve an existing doubt in his favor, it was incompetent, because it did not go to any characteristic or quality which tended to illustrate or shed light on the offense charged. That he had the reputation of being a quiet peaceable man, or the like, would have had a tendency to lead the jury to believe that he did not commit the violent act with which he was charged; but the fact that he bore a good character for truth could exert no legitimate influence in determining whether he had been guilty of a malicious violent, and deadly assault, however potent such evidence would be had he been charged with crimen falsi. The object and effect of such evidence is to disprove guilt by furnishing a presumption that the defendant would not have committed the offense, and hence the character sought to be proved must be such as would make it unlikely that the party would do the controverted act; as for example, in murder, the prisoner's reputation for peace and good order is admissible. Franklin v. State, 29 Ala. 14; People v. Stewart, 28 Cal. 395; Kee v State, 28 Ark. 155; State v. Kinley, 43 Iowa 294; State v. King, 78 Mo. 555. If, on the other hand, this evidence was introduced to give weight to the testimony of the defendant as a witness in his own behalf, as seems probable from the bill of exceptions, it was equally incompetent. It is familiar law that a party cannot offer testimony of the character for truth and veracity of his own witness until and unless an effort has been made by the adversary to impeach the witness' character in that regard. It does not appear by the bill of exceptions that any such effort was made in the case. This testimony was therefore, in either aspect, illegal. The state, in rebuttal, was allowed to prove particular acts or certain conduct of the defendant tending to show low and immoral associations. This, too, was clearly illegal evidence. Character, whether of witness or defendant, can never be proved or rebutted...