Smith v. United States
| Decision Date | 23 February 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4732.,4732. |
| Citation | 10 F.2d 787 |
| Parties | SMITH v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Warren L. Williams and Seymour S. Silverton, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
Samuel W. McNabb, U. S. Atty., and J. George Ohannesian, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
On the trial of an indictment against the plaintiff in error, charging him with selling, dispensing, and distributing a preparation of morphine contrary to law, he testified in his own behalf and contradicted the testimony which was adduced against him. Referring to his occupation, he testified that he made sandwiches and pies in a wholesale house, and supplied them to vendors, and was so engaged on the date laid in the indictment. On cross-examination, he again testified to his occupation as that of making and vending sandwiches. He was then asked:
Upon rebuttal, the prosecution called two witnesses, one of whom, in answer to the question whether he knew that the accused was engaged in any other business than that to which he had testified, testified that he did, and that his business was selling drugs. The other witness, in answer to a similar question, testified that the plaintiff in error was engaged in the business of selling narcotics. To these questions objection was interposed that the testimony was irrelevant, not proper cross-examination, and that to ask the questions was misconduct on the part of the United States attorney. In charging the jury the court instructed them that the rebuttal evidence as to the occupation of the plaintiff in error was to be regarded only as affecting his credibility.
We think the admission of that testimony was error for which the judgment must be reversed. When the plaintiff in error offered himself as a witness, he subjected himself to the rules applicable to all witnesses, and he was subject to cross-examination as to any matter which he had testified to on his direct examination, or which was germane thereto. To impeach his testimony he might properly have been asked whether he had been convicted of a crime, and, if he denied that he had been convicted, it would have been permissible to produce the record in rebuttal.
But here he was cross-examined as to a matter collateral to the subject under inquiry. While being tried on a charge of selling narcotics at a time and place specified, he was asked whether or not he had been engaged in the business of selling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Klass
...v. United States, 1 Cir., 1932, 56 F.2d 28, 30; Coulston v. United States, supra; Sager v. United States, supra; Smith v. United States, 9 Cir., 1926, 10 F.2d 787, 788; Newman v. United States, 4 Cir., 1923, 289 F. 712; cf. Martin v. United States, 1942, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 399, 127 F.2d 865, 8......
-
Young Ah Chor v. Dulles
...is bound by the answers of a witness on collateral matters and his answers thereon should conclude the inquiry. See Smith v. United States, 9 Cir., 10 F.2d 787. In the instant case the error, if any, in the admission of such impeaching statements was 4. Before considering appellant's fourth......
-
State v. Munguia
...fact to determine the preponderance of the evidence on matters that have no relation to the real questions before it. Smith v. United States, 10 F.2d 787 (9th Cir.1926); Smith v. State, 273 Md. 152, 328 A.2d 274 In Chipman v. Mercer, supra, the court stated: "[A] confrontation clause violat......
-
United States v. Miller, 307
...F.2d 732, 751, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 817, 75 S. Ct. 29, 99 L.Ed. 645; 4 Wigmore, Evidence, 3rd Ed., § 1078. 11 See Smith v. United States, 9 Cir., 10 F.2d 787, 788. 12 United States v. Silver, 2 Cir., 235 F.2d 375, 378, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 880, 77 S.Ct. 102, 1 L.Ed.2d 80; United......