State v. Knox, (No. 8864.)
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | GARY |
| Citation | 98 S.C. 114,82 S.E. 278 |
| Docket Number | (No. 8864.) |
| Decision Date | 03 July 1914 |
| Parties | STATE. v. KNOX. |
82 S.E. 278
(98 S.C. 114)
STATE.
v.
KNOX.
(No. 8864.)
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
July 3, 1914.
Gage, J., dissenting in part.
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Anderson County; H. F. Rice, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Ab Knox was convicted of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
A. H. Dagnall, of Anderson, for appellant.
P. A. Bonham, Sol., of Greenville, for the State.
GARY, C. J. The defendant was indicted for assault and battery with intent to kill, and was convicted of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature.
The first question that will be considered is whether there was error, on the part of his honor the presiding judge, in allowing the solicitor to cross-examine the defendant, over his objection, as to other quarrels, not connected in any way with the offense for which he was on trial, when he had not introduced testimony as to his reputation for peace and good order.
The record shows that the following took place during the cross-examination of the defendant by the solicitor:
"Q. Now, Knox, this isn't the first time you have been in trouble like this, is it? A. Trouble like what? Q. Why, like this, this fight? As a matter of fact, it is a common practice of yours to do things of this kind, isn't it? You cut Mr. Trammel over there at Belton, didn't you? Objected to by Mr. Dagnall: It is not permissible to cross-examine the defendant on quarrels with persons other than the prosecutor, as this does not tend to affect the credibility of the defendant. The defendant has not put in issue his reputation or character for peace and good order; therefore the state cannot attempt to show that he has a turbulent or violent character. The only issue in this case is this: Is the defendant guilty of an assault and battery, with intent to kill, upon one Frank Fant? And other quarrels would be irrelevant and prejudicial to the defendant, as we did nut anticipate that we would have to answer for every difficulty in which the defendant might have been connected in the past. Mr. Bonham: Your honor, if they put witnesses up as to his reputation, I could bring witnesses here to controvert them. But, where the man goes on the stand himself, he certainly lays the gate open to all of his previous actions, to discredit his statements in this particular case, and I am entitled to prove, if I can, by his own admissions on cross-examinations that he has a turbulent and violent character. Court: Go on; I will let you examine him."
His honor the presiding judge also allowed the solicitor to ask the defendant the following questions on cross-examination:
"Didn't you go up to the home of Mr. Coker on one occasion and raise a row? * * * Well, you went up there and got into a. fight with him, didn't you? Now, didn't you on another occasion, at your home on Christmas eve, didn't your own brother-in-law shoot at you, for hitting your sister in the head with a pair of brass knucks?"
There is a marked distinction between the credibility and the character of a witness.
"There is a wide difference between character and conduct for a time, and one equally wide between general character and proper credit on a special trial or occasion." Chapman
[82 S.E. 279]v. Cooley, 12 Rich. 654; State v. Jones, 29 S. C. 201, 7 S. E. 296; State v. Wallace, 44 S. C. 357, 22 S. E. 411; State v. Rice, 49 S. C. 418, 27 S. E. 452, 61 Am. St. Rep. 516; State v. Summer, 55 S. C. 32, 32 S. E. 771, 74 Am. St. Rep. 707; State v. Stukes, 73 S. C. 386, 53 S. E. 643.
The general rule for attacking the credibility or character of a witness is fully stated in the case of Sweet v. Gilmore, 52 S. C. 530, 30 S. E. 395, cited with approval in State v. Gibson, 83 S. C. 34, 64 S. E. 607, 916.
In the case of State v. Robertson, 26 S. C. 121, 1 S. E. 445, the court held that the generally accepted doctrine was that where the defendant testifies in his own behalf his character for truth and veracity is thereby uncovered but not his general moral character. In that case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hargraves, 6776
...Idaho Const., 5th Amendment of U. S. Const.; State v. McLaughlin, 76 Mo. 320; State v. Saunders, 14 Ore. 300, 12 P. 441; State v. Knox, 98 S.C. 114, 82 S.E. 278; De Lerosa v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. Rep. 604, 170 S.W. 312; State v. Miller, 75 W.Va. 591, 84 S.E. 383.) It is error to define murder......
-
State v. Bigham, (No. 11913.)
...35 S. E. 210; State v. Williamson, 65 S. C. 242, 43 S. E. 671; State v. Rowell, 75 S. C. 494, 56 S. E. 23; State v. Knox, 98 S. C. 117, 82 S. E. 278, and the State v. Frierson, 132 S. C. 362, 128 S. E. 709, recently filed, which confirms the principles announced in the cases supra, yet it i......
-
Mulligan v. State, No. 800
...Nelson v. State, 99 Fla. 1032, 128 So. 1, syl. 2, 3 (1930) (use of opium, at other than relevant times, properly excluded); State v. Knox, 98 S.C. 114, 82 S.E. 278, syl. 2 (1914) (previous cutting scrapes should have been excluded); 70 C.J. 869, § 6 The Court split 4 to 3. Justice White was......
-
State v. Jones, (No. 11858.)
...battery submitted to the jury? There is no doubt as to the general proposition thus announced in the ease of State v. Knox, 9S S. C. 114, 82 S. E. 278: "An indictment for a higher offense will sustain a conviction for a lower offense included in the higher, and that a jury can find a defend......
-
State v. Hargraves, 6776
...Idaho Const., 5th Amendment of U. S. Const.; State v. McLaughlin, 76 Mo. 320; State v. Saunders, 14 Ore. 300, 12 P. 441; State v. Knox, 98 S.C. 114, 82 S.E. 278; De Lerosa v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. Rep. 604, 170 S.W. 312; State v. Miller, 75 W.Va. 591, 84 S.E. 383.) It is error to define murder......
-
State v. Bigham, (No. 11913.)
...35 S. E. 210; State v. Williamson, 65 S. C. 242, 43 S. E. 671; State v. Rowell, 75 S. C. 494, 56 S. E. 23; State v. Knox, 98 S. C. 117, 82 S. E. 278, and the State v. Frierson, 132 S. C. 362, 128 S. E. 709, recently filed, which confirms the principles announced in the cases supra, yet it i......
-
Mulligan v. State, No. 800
...Nelson v. State, 99 Fla. 1032, 128 So. 1, syl. 2, 3 (1930) (use of opium, at other than relevant times, properly excluded); State v. Knox, 98 S.C. 114, 82 S.E. 278, syl. 2 (1914) (previous cutting scrapes should have been excluded); 70 C.J. 869, § 6 The Court split 4 to 3. Justice White was......
-
State v. Jones, (No. 11858.)
...battery submitted to the jury? There is no doubt as to the general proposition thus announced in the ease of State v. Knox, 9S S. C. 114, 82 S. E. 278: "An indictment for a higher offense will sustain a conviction for a lower offense included in the higher, and that a jury can find a d......