State v. Frederickson
| Decision Date | 12 February 1910 |
| Docket Number | 16,549 |
| Citation | 106 P. 1061,81 Kan. 854 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JAMES P. FREDERICKSON, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1910.
Appeal from Allen district court; OSCAR FOUST, judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. CRIMINAL LAW--Evidence to Establish Good Character--General Reputation--Limitation. When the defendant in a criminal action undertakes to establish good character as an element of his defense to the charge he is limited in his proof to testimony regarding his general reputation for possessing the traits involved, in the community where he resides, and the state, in rebuttal, is limited to the same kind of testimony. Neither party may resort to specific instances of conduct demonstrative of character, nor to the private judgment or opinion of individuals, nor to any fact other than that of general reputation.
2. CRIMINAL LAW -- Rebuttal Testimony of Specific Instances of Conduct Prejudicial. In this case it is held that certain evidence in rebuttal, admitted in opposition to the rule stated, was prejudicial to the defendant to such an extent that he is entitled to a new trial.
F. J Oyler, and Baxter D. McClain, for the appellant.
Fred S. Jackson, attorney-general, S. A. Gard, and H. A. Ewing, county attorney, for the appellee.
The appellant was charged with murder and was convicted of manslaughter in the fourth degree. His claim of error is that prejudicial testimony was wrongfully admitted.
At the time of the homicide the appellant was city marshal of the city of Bassett and constable of Iola township, in which Bassett, a city of the third class, is situated. He undertook to arrest William Cooper, a negro, on the charge of carrying concealed weapons, and within a few moments shot Cooper in the back. No one saw what occurred between the parties before or at the time the shot was fired. According to the appellant's account of what took place the shooting was apparently necessary to save his own life.
To sustain his defense of self-defense the appellant put in issue his character as an officer and as a man, and to prove good character presented many witnesses who testified favorably regarding his general reputation as a careful, conscientious and faithful officer and as a peaceful, quiet and law-abiding citizen. To rebut this proof the state produced the ex-mayor of Bassett, who testified that while he was mayor the appellant was a member of the police force. When the appellant was sworn in the mayor took his resignation in order to get rid of him at any time his services were not satisfactory. Afterward the mayor presented the resignation to the council, which accepted it; but the appellant refused to leave the force, continued to act as a policeman, wore his uniform and carried his gun. The resignation was presented to the council because the mayor had information which led him to believe the appellant was not a suitable officer and the mayor had no further confidence in him. The state also produced two members of the city council who testified that the appellant was discharged from the police force. The appellant objected to all this testimony and exceptions were duly saved to its admission.
If the appellant bore the character he claimed, his care and conscientiousness as an officer and his instincts as a quiet, peace-loving and law-abiding man would most likely guide him safely through a crisis. The possession of such ingrained characteristics would make it strongly probable that he acted within the law and was guilty of no crime. It was of vital importance, therefore, that he should establish his character before the jury. How could he do so? The method is well understood. The court could not stop to listen to a history of how he behaved on some or on many occasions, or assume to take an accounting of his character either from specific demonstrative acts or the private opinions of individuals. All he could do was to show his general reputation for possessing the qualities in issue, and this general reputation is fair evidence of true character.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Latham
...to testimony regarding his general reputation for possessing the traits involved, in the community where he resides (State v. Frederickson, 81 Kan. 854, 106 P. 1061; State v. Howland, 157 Kan. 11, 138 P.2d 424). In State v. Kirby, 62 Kan. 436, 63 P. 752, it was '* * * When character is in i......
-
U.S. v. Hewitt
...these cases holds that only narrow, specific traits of character may be shown; indeed, both Hawley, Van Gaasbeck, and State v. Fredrickson, 1910, 81 Kan. 854, 106 P. 1061, cited in Howland, suggest the opposite proposition. All three cases merely apply the well-established rule that only re......
-
State v. Mason
...179 Kan. 133, 292 P.2d 698; State v. Long, 103 Kan. 302, 175 P. 145. Cf., State v. Johnson, 185 Kan. 1, 340 P.2d 373; State v. Frederickson, 81 Kan. 854, 106 P. 1061; State v. Kirby, 62 Kan. 436, 63 P. 752. Here, however, the evidence offered did not go to general reputation; what appellant......
-
Lowrey v. State
...and may also cross examine defendant relative to said specific acts as hereinbefore indicated. The defendant relies on State v. Frederickson, 81 Kan. 854, 106 P. 1061, wherein it was held in a situation similar to this: '* * Neither party may resort to specific instances of conduct demonstr......