State v. Fry

• Decision Date: 17 March 1896
• Parties: STATE v. FRY.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

35 S.W. 883

96 Tenn. 467

STATE v. FRY.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

March 17, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Warren county; M. D. Smallman, Judge.

S. A Fry was convicted of the crime of arson, and appeals. Reversed.

Lind & Willis and Fairbanks & O'Neal, for appellant.

G. W Pickle, Atty. Gen., for the State.

McALISTER J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the circuit court of Warren county of the crime of arson, and sentenced to confinement in the state prison for a term of five years. On the trial below, the defendant became a witness in his own behalf, and thus put his character in issue before the jury. The defendant, it appeared, had resided in Warren county for about six years preceding the trial, and witnesses were introduced by him in support of his character, while others introduced by the state impeached it. The defendant, prior to his removal to Warren county, in this state, had resided for many years in the state of Wisconsin. In support of his character, defendant offered in evidence the depositions of nine witnesses who had known him in Wisconsin. Counsel for the state objected to the introduction of these depositions "upon the ground that the witnesses lived in the state of Wisconsin, and the testimony related to the character of defendant in a foreign state six or seven years before the time defendant gave his testimony." The objection was sustained by the court, to which defendant's counsel excepted. The witnesses whose depositions were excluded were former neighbors of the defendant, some of whom had lived on adjoining farms, and had known him for 15 or 16 years. They testified that, while they knew nothing of his character since his removal from that state, it was good while he lived there, and they would give him full faith and credit on his oath. The question thus presented for decision is one of first impression in this state, so far as we are advised from any reported case. The case of Crowder v. State, 8 Lea, 669, is not an adjudication of this question. The question there presented was in respect of the character of the prosecutor, who had testified as a witness. All that was said on the subject is comprised in the following paragraphs to wit: "The state, by several witnesses, sustained the general character of the prosecutor. Two of the witnesses said his character was good for the last eight or ten years. The defendant then proffered to ask the witness as to his character previous to that time, but the court sustained the objection of the attorney general to the question. This, said the court, was not reversible error; the question was the character of the prosecutor at the time he testified. If the witnesses knew his character previous to the time fixed by them, their answers in the form given were almost equivalent to saying that, previous to that time, it was at least not free from doubt, so that, in effect, the defendant had the benefit of his proffered question." It will be observed that the court in that case remarked that the character of the prosecutor at the time he testified was the issue, and, for the purpose of reflecting light upon that issue, the state...