State v. Creson
| Decision Date | 31 July 1866 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. J. CRESON, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Webster Circuit Court.
Lindenbower and Sherwood, for appellant.
The court should not have permitted the prosecution to attack the character of the accused by interrogatories touching such character, no evidence on that point having been introduced by the defence--3 Greenl. Ev. § 25; People v. White 14 Wend. 111; Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. 325; Bull N. P. 296; State v. Merrill, 2 Dev. 269.
The second instruction given on the part of the State is erroneous, because not sufficiently full and explicit--1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 11, 34; erroneous, because it asserts the recent possession of stolen property is conclusive of guilt--3 Greenl. Ev. § 31.
This was an indictment for grand larceny. On the trial, the prosecutor was allowed, against the objections of the prisoner, to give evidence of his bad character and reputation; and the witness stated that he “was acquainted with the reputation of the defendant for honesty, and that his reputation was that of a thief in Greene county and in Tennessee, where he came from.” The proof of the larceny charged consisted chiefly in the circumstance that the defendant was found in the recent possession of the property stolen, and he failed to explain his possession in any manner consistent with his innocence. That such evidence, unexplained, was sufficient to warrant a conviction, and even conclusive of guilt, there can be no question (1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 11, 34); but is still only circumstantial. The jury are to decide upon the guilt of the accused, upon all the circumstances; and it is not to be denied that this evidence of the bad reputation of the prisoner might have had great weight with the jury. His previous character was not directly involved in the issue; and the admission of such testimony was contrary to the established principles of law. The prosecutor in criminal cases cannot be allowed to call witnesses to prove the general bad character of the prisoner, unless to rebut evidence of his good character already adduced by him--3 Greenl. Ev. § 25; Bull N. P. 296, Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. 325; People v. White, 14 Wend. 111. The admission of this testimony was clearly erroneous.
Exception was also taken to the second instruction given for the State, that “recent possession of stolen property is presumptive evidence that the party having such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Willard, 36915.
...9; State v. Wellman, 161 S.W. 795, 253 Mo. 302; State v. Shipley, 74 S.W. 612, 174 Mo. 512; State v. Martin, 74 Mo. 547; State v. Creson, 38 Mo. 372. (3) It is error for a prosecuting attorney to ask questions which he knows are improper and will prejudice the jury. Secs. 5, 22, Rule 35, Su......
-
The State v. Beckner
...be assailed by the State until the accused has offered proof as to his character, or, in other words, put his character in issue. [State v. Creson, 38 Mo. 372; State Martin, 74 Mo. 547; State v. Palmer, 88 Mo. 568; State v. Hart, 66 Mo. 208; State v. Hudspeth, 159 Mo. 178, 60 S.W. 136.] And......
-
State v. Willard
... ... 275, 332 Mo. 255; State v. Pinkston, 79 S.W.2d 1046, ... 336 Mo. 614; State v. Baird, 195 S.W. 1010, 271 Mo ... 9; State v. Wellman, 161 S.W. 795, 253 Mo. 302; ... State v. Shipley, 74 S.W. 612, 174 Mo. 512; ... State v. Martin, 74 Mo. 547; State v ... Creson, 38 Mo. 372. (3) It is error for a prosecuting ... attorney to ask questions which he knows are improper and ... will prejudice the jury. Secs. 5, 22, Rule 35, Sup. Ct.; ... State v. Pierson, 56 S.W.2d 120, 331 Mo. 636; 16 C ... J., p. 892, sec. 2229; State v. Rose, 178 Mo. 25 ... ...
- State v. Bryant