State v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 21 February 1911
• Citation: 113 P. 440,58 Or. 116
• Parties: STATE v. CRAWFORD.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

113 P. 440

58 Or. 116

STATE v. CRAWFORD.

Supreme Court of Oregon

February 21, 1911

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; John B. Cleland, Judge.

Emma Crawford was convicted of larceny from the person, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of larceny from the person sentenced to the penitentiary for a period of two years, and appeals. Upon the trial defendant testified in her own behalf, and in rebuttal the state, for the purpose of impeaching defendant, over the objection of her counsel introduced in evidence five certified copies of the record of convictions in Portland's municipal court for "disorderly conduct," "visiting an opium joint," and like offenses on and between May 16, 1906 and January 30, 1909, in violation of Ordinance No. 14,049 for which in each case a fine of $10 was imposed. While these records contain some of the elements of an offense prohibited by statute, they do not show a complete crime under the statute of this state. To their admission in evidence counsel for defendant duly saved an exception, which constitutes the only question raised on this appeal.

John F. Logan (Charles A. Petrain, on the brief), for appellant.

George J. Cameron, Dist. Atty. ( Joseph H. Page, on the brief), for the State.

BEAN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The contention of defendant's counsel is that a witness cannot be impeached by showing a prior conviction for violating a city ordinance, for the reason that such an offense is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor within the meaning of section 863, L. O.L., while counsel for the state claim the reverse. The statute referred to provides that a witness may be impeached by the party against whom he is called by contradictory evidence, or by evidence that his general reputation for truth is bad, or that his moral character is such as to render him unworthy of belief, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment that he has been convicted of a crime. Crimes are either felonies or misdemeanors. Section 1370, L. O.L.

In State v. Bacon, 13 Or. 143, 9 P. 393, 57 Am.Rep. 8 this court held that it is proper to show by an examination of a witness that he has been convicted of either a felony or misdemeanor, and the record may be introduced to prove such fact. Also, under section 1534, permitting the accused to be a witness in his own behalf, and sections 863, 870, a witness may be impeached by showing a prior conviction of crime, and the accused, as a witness in his own behalf, may be impeached in the same manner as any other witness. State v. Deal, 52 Or. 570, 98 P. 165. In the case of Portland v. Erickson, 39 Or. 1, 62 P. 753, relied upon by counsel for the state in this cause, it was ruled in effect that a prosecution for violation of a city ordinance was an offense within the inhibition of article 1, § 12, of the state Constitution, which provides that no person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense, but it does not follow that such an offense is a crime within the purview of section 863. It has been held that prosecutions for the violation of city ordinances are not criminal actions. Wong v. City of Astoria, 13 Or. 538, 11 P. 295; Cranor v. Albany, 43 Or. 144, 71 P. 1042; Madison v. Horner, 15 S.D. 359, 89 N.W. 474; Cooper v. People, 41 Mich. 403, 2 N.W. 51; Mankato v. Arnold, 36 Minn. 62, 30 N.W. 305; Delaney v. Police, 167 Mo. 667, 67 S.W. 589; Fortune v. Wilburton, 142 F. 114, 73 C.C.A. 338, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 782.

In Arhart v. Stark, 6 Misc.Rep. 579, 27 N.Y.Supp. 301 a civil case, under a statute providing that a prior conviction for a crime or misdemeanor might be proved for the purpose of affecting the weight of a witness' testimony, the ruling was that admitting the evidence of a judgment of the municipal court of Buffalo convicting defendant of keeping a house of ill fame in violation of a city ordinance was reversible error. By the terms of the Penal Code of that state the offense was...