State v. Laboon
| Decision Date | 23 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | 9687. |
| Citation | 92 S.E. 622,107 S.C. 275 |
| Parties | STATE v. LABOON ET AL. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Anderson County Mendel L. Smith, Judge.
Walter Laboon and another were convicted of manslaughter, and appeal. Appeal dismissed.
Greene & Earle, of Anderson, for appellants.
Kurtz P. Smith, of Anderson, for the State.
The defendants were tried for murder, and convicted of manslaughter.
The first question presented by the exceptions is whether there was error on the part of his honor the presiding Judge in overruling the objection of the appellants to the testimony of a witness offered by the state, on the ground that he had been convicted of manslaughter, it being a felony. At common law it was a prerequisite to the disqualification of a witness, on the ground that he had been convicted of an offense, that such offense should be of the crimen falsi; and, in order for the crime to be infamous, it was not only necessary that it should involve falsehood or fraud, but that it should be of such a nature as made it probable that the party committing the offense was devoid of truth and insensible to the obligations of an oath. The infamy which rendered such person incompetent as a witness was formerly held to arise from two sources; the conviction of certain offenses and the infliction of certain punishments. It was soon found that the classification based upon the nature of the punishment involved offenses that were not of the crimen falsi, and accordingly such classification was rejected as unreasonable. A classification founded upon the fact that certain offenses are denominated felonies is likewise unsound, because it is not a fact that the nature of all felonies is such as to make it probable that the parties committing them are devoid of truth and insensible to the obligations of an oath. The name by which an offense is designated does not change its moral characteristics, which must necessarily be considered in determining whether the person convicted of a felony is disqualified as a witness; in other words, whether the offense was of the crimen falsi.
These conclusions are sustained by the following authorities Greenleaf on Evidence, §§ 372, 373:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hester
...... . . It is. conceded by appellant's counsel that it has been. definitely determined in this state that, ordinarily, one who. has been convicted of manslaughter does not thereby become. incompetent as a witness in our courts. State v. Laboon, 107 S.C. 275, 92 S.E. 622, L. R. A. 1917F, 896. It is of some interest to note that the leading counsel for. the defendant here was the distinguished presiding judge on. circuit in the Laboon Case, and his ruling was affirmed by. this court. . . It is. not sought now, as ......
-
State v. O'Shields
...... regarded as a felony in this state. . . But the. fact that a crime is classified as a felony does not. necessarily fix it as infamous. A conviction of the crime of. manslaughter does not disqualify one as a witness. State. v. Laboon, 107 S.C. 275, 92 S.E. 622, L. R. A. 1917F,. 896. On the other hand, a conviction of petit larceny is of. the crimen falsi, rendering a witness incompetent to testify. State v. James, 15 S.C. 233. It is seen, therefore,. that a greater odium attaches to petit larceny, which carries. slight ......
-
State v. Jeffcoat
...in this state, yet this court has decided that one who had been convicted of that crime could testify as a witness. State v. Laboon, 107 S.C. 275, 92 S.E. 622, L. R. 1917F, 896. It is conceded by the counsel for the appellant that the crime of which the witness Wise was convicted was not kn......