State v. Carson
| Decision Date | 20 December 1876 |
| Citation | 66 Me. 116 |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. GEORGE CARSON. 1875. |
ON EXCEPTIONS.
INDICTMENT. The prisoner was tried for the alleged murder of Brawn on board a boat at Milford on the Penobscot river, on the 19th day of July, 1874; and upon the trial the counsel for the defense contended that the parties Carson and Brawn were intoxicated at the time.
The prisoner was put upon the stand as a witness; and in the course of the cross-examination the following questions against the objection of the prisoner's counsel, were allowed to be asked upon matters not inquired of in chief and answers given:
Q. Did you assault Mr. Farrar on the Calais road while drunk?
A. I do not remember making any assault on anybody only in self-defense.
Q. Did you stab your brother William, while drunk?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Don't you remember whether you stabbed your brother William three or four times, while drunk?
A. No, sir.
Q. Will you say that you did not?
A. I do, sir.
Q. Did you assault Mr. Fiske, of Exeter, the hotel keeper, while drunk?
A. No, sir, not that I remember of, till he assaulted me once.
Q. Did you assault an old man, there in Exeter, while drunk?
A. No, sir; never.
Q. Did you assault Thomas Jordan and Andrew Phnifer, with a pistol, while drunk?
A. I presume that they assaulted me, and I took their pistol away, and gave them what folks in Oldtown and Milford said they deserved.
Q. Did you assault Henry Wadleigh, in Oldtown, while drunk?
A. I never assaulted him any further than an agreement was made between us.
The verdict was guilty; and the prisoner's counsel alleged exceptions.
A. Knowles, for the prisoner.
H. M. Plaisted, attorney general, for the state.
The prisoner was on trial for the murder of one Brawn. He was a witness in his own behalf. In his defense he had not put in evidence his previous good character. On cross-examination the counsel for the government was permitted, against objection duly taken, to ask him the following questions " Did you assault Mr. Farrar on the Calais road, while drunk." Similar questions were allowed to be put to the witness, against objection, as to assaults on several other persons, at different times and places, while drunk. These matters had not been gone into, in the examination in chief. Was this line of examination legally permissible? It must have been admitted for one of two purposes: either as affecting the credibility of the witness, or as tending to prove the crime alleged. A party to a suit may be a witness. If a witness, his examination must be conducted under the same rules that are applicable to the examination of any other witness. To impeach his credibility, it is not competent to prove by other witnesses that he has committed other crimes than the one with which he is charged; nor is it competent to do the same thing by cross-examination. The proper line of cross-examination does not extend so far as to authorize, in that way, the introduction of incompetent evidence. The witness must be prepared to vindicate his general character for truth, and to meet the proper evidence of a prior conviction of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sanborn
...scienter and intent. Nickerson v. Gould, 82 Me. 512, 515, 20 A. 86; State v. Smith, 140 Me. 255, 274, 276, 37 A.2d 246; State v. Carson, 66 Me. 116, 118; State v. Acheson, 91 Me. 240, 246, 39 A. 570; State v. Fogg, 92 N.H. 308, 311, 30 A.2d 491, 493; Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Ed., §§ 153, 32......
-
State v. Uhler
...17 Mont. 17, 31 L.R.A. 294, 52 Am. St. Rep. 655, 41 P. 998, 10 Am. Crim. Rep. 46; People v. Un Dong, 106 Cal. 83, 39 P. 12; State v. Carson, 66 Me. 116, 2 Am. Crim. Rep. The state has no right, in rebuttal or otherwise, to offer testimony to impeach the conceded testimony of defendant's abs......
-
State v. Mackey
...... that proof of one has a direct bearing upon the other,--in. other words, that such proof tends to show or furnish motive. State v. Hazlet, 16 N.D. 444, 113 N.W. 374;. State v. LaMont, 23 S.D. 174, 120 N.W. 1104;. Com. v. Jackson, 132 Mass. 16; State v. Carson, 66 Me. 116, 2 Am. Crim. Rep. 58; People v. Crapo, 76 N.Y. 288, 32 Am. Rep. 302; People v. Brown, 72 N.Y. 571, 28 Am. Rep. 183; Gifford v. People, 87 Ill. 210; Hayward v. People, 96 Ill. 492; Rice, Crim. Ev. 215; State v. Apley, 25 N.D. 298, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 269, 141 N.W. 740; ......
-
State v. Apley
...any charge which may be insinuated in the form of cross-examination. Com. v. Jackson, 132 Mass. 16, 44 Am. Rep. 299, note; State v. Carson, 66 Me. 116, 2 Am. Crim. Rep. 58; People v. Crapo, 76 N.Y. 288, Am. Rep. 302; People v. Brown, 72 N.Y. 571, 28 Am. Rep. 183; Gifford v. People, 87 Ill. ......