State v. Biddison
Decision Date | 29 November 1963 |
Citation | 195 A.2d 532,159 Me. 475 |
Parties | STATE of Maine v. Douglass BIDDISON. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
John A. Lund, County Atty., Augusta, for plaintiff.
Casper Tevanian, Portland, for defendant.
Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, SULLIVAN, SIDDALL and MARDEN, JJ.
Respondent had been accused by indictment of having taken indecent liberties with a male child of the age of 13 years. Respondent was tried by a jury whose verdict was guilty. Respondent here prosecutes exceptions to rulings by the presiding Justice who at two junctures during trial denied to Respondent's counsel leave to protract the cross examination of the complaining State witness concerning the latter's credibility and mendacity and who upon the close of all the evidence denied Respondent's motion for a directed verdict of not guilty
The statutory text is pertinently as follows.
'Whoever, being 21 years or more of age, takes any indecent liberty or liberties * * * with the sexual parts or organs of any other person, male or female under the age of 16 years, either with or without the consent of such male or female person, * * * shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished * * *.' R.S. c. 134, § 6, P.L.1961, c. 60.
EXCEPTION 1.
In support of the criminal charge the alleged youthful victim had under direct examination imputed to the Respondent acts committed upon the witness by the Respondent in violation of statute quoted above. Thereafter during cross examination the following colloquy ensued
Mr. Tevanian (for Respondent) 'Q. David, do you go to school now?
'A. No.
'Q. Why?
'A. Because I skipped a day the week before last and I got expelled.
(Conference at the bench.)
'THE COURT: The jury may be excused. This is in the nature of an offer of proof, so you may go ahead.
(Jury retires to jury room.)
'Q. Where is your father?
'A. He is down in Connecticut right now.
'Q. And did you run away from your father's home about a month ago?
'A. No.
'Q. Or two months ago?
'A. No.
'Q. Didn't your mother have to go down to Connecticut to bring you back?
'A. No.
'Q. Now, isn't it a fact, David, that you were expelled from school for lying repeatedly and continuously?
'A. That isn't what he told me.
'Q. That isn't what who told you?
'A. Mr. Kinney, the Principal of Schools.
The questions and the offer of proof by Respondent's counsel manifest that the interrogator was intent upon the enterprise of discrediting the witness by evincing directly that the witness had been expelled from school, had been a runaway and was addicted to habitual falsehood. The objective of Respondent's counsel was the testimonial impeachment of the witness. The test is whether the questioning constituted cross examination or an exercise in eliciting evidence to impugn and contradict the witness upon collateral matters.
The complaining witness independently of explusion from school or of flight from home might or might not have been violated by the Respondent as the indictment charges.
Respondent's counsel inquired of the complaining witness concerning the latter's past conduct with respect to the telling of untruths. Counsel's motive was obviously to expose any chronic moral irresponsibility in the witness as to veracity.
In treating of the testimonial qualification or incapacity of a witness concededly prone to lying Professor Wigmore states a sound general principle.
Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd ed., Vol. 2, § 515, P. 602.
The complaining witness's promiscuous falsification, if such there had been, did not disqualify or incapacitate him as a witness. And unless he had told untruths intrinsically related to the offense with which the Respondent in this case is charged extended scrutiny by Respondent's counsel as to complainant's other and extrinsic prevarications would have been unserviceable and objectionable. At the trial the Justice presiding had become reasonably satisfied that the witness appreciated the solemn nature of an oath. The witness thereupon had been sworn and all of his court testimony was oath bound. When telling any extrinsic untruths outside of court prior to the trial there is no reason to suppose that he was at any time under oath.
It is quite conceivable that in the witness's relations with his scholastic superiors and even with his mother there had been some agitating clash of personalities, factors of embarrassment, fear, resentment, perturbed conscience, etc. To probe such motivating circumstances would have been unpredictably and incalculably digressing, time consuming and experimental.
The cross interrogation and generalized offer of proof of Respondent's counsel for all that the record discloses were addressed to matters perceptibly collateral to the issues tried in the instant case. The circumstances thus placed in requisition the exercise of a sound discretion by the presiding Justice.
'* * * How far or how long counsel may proceed with a witness to test memory or to show lack of veracity, bias, prejudice, etc., is a matter of the Court's discretion. * * *' State v. Whitehead, 151 Me. 135, 141, 116 A.2d 618, 621.
'How far the cross-examination of a witness may be deemed helpful and relevant to the issue being...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lewisohn
...the proffered evidence to show the contrary was inadmissible. See State v. Bunker, 1976, Me., 351 A.2d 841, 843; State v. Biddison, 1963, 159 Me. 475, 483, 195 A.2d 532, 536; Bessey v. Herring, 1922, 121 Me. 539, 118 A. 423; State v. Benner, 1874, 64 Me. 267, The defendant further contends ......
-
State v. Brown
...of impeachment is left to the sound discretion of the trial justice. State v. Gervais, Me., 317 A.2d 796 (1974); State v. Biddison, 159 Me. 475, 195 A.2d 532 (1963); State v. Whitehead, 151 Me. 135, 116 A.2d 618 (1955); State v. Kimball, 50 Me. 409 (1861). While cross-examination of accompl......
-
State v. Gervais
...International Paper Company v. State, 1968, Me., 248 A.2d 749. See also, State v. Lizotte, 1969, Me., 249 A.2d 874; State v. Biddison, 1963, 159 Me. 475, 195 A.2d 532. This record does not support any abuse of Under the peculiar facts of this case, that the defendant was convicted of the cr......
-
State v. Miller
...impeachment of a child witness by showing previous falsehood in wholly unrelated matters was upheld by this Court in State v. Biddison, 159 Me. 475, 195 A.2d 532 (1963)). The issue thus raised by the defendant requires the evaluation of the child's testimony against conflicting assertions o......