State v. Lee
Decision Date | 26 February 1876 |
Parties | STATE OF MINNESOTA <I>vs.</I> EDWARD LEE. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
W. A. Gorman, and I. V. D. Heard, for appellant.
Geo. P. Wilson, Attorney General, for the State.
The defendant was indicted for the commission of a rape. Upon the trial
The defendant called as a witness one Hopkins, who testified as follows: On preliminary cross-examination by the prosecuting attorney the witness testified as follows: "Never heard his character spoken of by any one before this transaction." On behalf of defendant the witness was asked the following questions, viz.: 1. "What was defendant's character as to peace and quietness?" 2. "What was defendant's disposition as to peace and quietness?" Both questions were excluded by the court upon objection by the prosecution.
Several other witnesses were asked similar questions, (also excluded,) but none of them appear from the testimony to have been acquainted with the defendant's character for peace and quietness, (using the word character in the sense of reputed character, or reputation,) so as to qualify them to testify to the same, though some of them showed more or less knowledge of defendant's disposition.
Defendant also proposed, in the language of the record, "to call other witnesses, who had been acquainted with defendant for about two years, but who had never heard his character, disposition, or reputation discussed or spoken of, and to prove by them that his disposition for peace and quietness was good; also that his character for the same was good, and also that his general reputation for the same was good; but the court held that neither of the above could be shown unless the witnesses would testify that they heard the defendant's character or disposition for peace and quietness discussed or spoken of."
By the strict and technical rule, as laid down by the textwriters, the only evidence of his good character which an accused person is permitted to adduce upon his trial for a criminal offence is evidence of general repute. In practice, however, the rule is seldom strictly enforced, but is in fact much...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Luther
...v. Stefanowicz, supra 118 Pa.Super. at 82, 179 A. at 771. See also State v. Sprague, 64 N.J.Law, 419, 45 A. 788 (1900); State v. Lee, 22 Minn. 407, 21 Am.Rep. 769 (1876); Lincecum v. State, 29 Tex.App. 328, 15 S.W. 818 (1890) (proof of quiet and peaceful character of defendant admissible in......
-
State v. Mucci
...enterprise, a mode of proof somewhat akin to evidence of 'character,' by way of disposition or reputation in the community, State v. Lee, 22 Minn. 407 (Sup.Ct.1876); and, whatever its probative worth for other purposes, it had little or no virtue as proof of the essential and relevant fact ......
-
State v. Morris, 22022.
...would be likely to have heard anything said against him may testify that he never heard any remark against his character. State v. Lee, 22 Minn. 407, 21 Am. Rep. 769. Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of this sort, and that prejudice to his substantial ri......
-
State v. Morris
...would be likely to have heard anything said against him, may testify that he never heard any remark against his character. State v. Lee, 22 Minn. 407, 21 Am. Rep. 769. Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of this sort and that prejudice to his substantial ri......