State v. Lee
| Decision Date | 20 February 1905 |
| Citation | 46 Or. 40,79 P. 577 |
| Parties | STATE v. LEE. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; Thomas A. McBride Judge.
James G. Lee was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Reversed.
Henry E. McGinn and H.T. Bagley, for appellant.
Harrison Allen, Dist. Atty., and E.B. Tongue, for the State.
The defendant was tried and convicted of the larceny of a calf the property of one Dennis. From the judgment sentencing him to the penitentiary he appeals.
Dennis was a witness for the state, and gave material testimony tending to support the theory of the prosecution. On cross-examination he was asked, "Your feelings have not been good toward him [the defendant]?" and replied "No." He was then asked, "You and Mr. Boyd are known to be the enemies of Mr. Lee?" and answered --Here objection was made to the witness further answering the question, but it was overruled, and he continued: A motion was made to strike out all the testimony of the witness after the words "ill will," but it was overruled, the court saying, "I think he has a right to explain why." These rulings were erroneous, because the evidence objected to tended to show the commission by the defendant of crimes other than the one charged against him, or to prove his general bad character. Proof of the commission of a crime unconnected with that alleged in the indictment or information cannot be given against a defendant ( State v. Baker, 23 Or. 441, 32 P. 161; State v. O'Donnell, 36 Or. 222, 61 P 892; State v. McDaniel, 39 Or. 161, 173, 65 P. 520) nor is evidence of his general reputation or bad character admissible until he has himself put his character in issue (Wharton, Crim.Ev. § 64). It is argued by the state that the testimony objected to was the legitimate result of the cross-examination, and merely tended to explain the grounds of the feelings or bias of the witness toward the defendant. The hostility of a witness to the party against whom he is testifying affects his credibility, and the extent thereof is a proper subject of cross-examination. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Estlick
...be developed on cross-examination and redirect examination in the event that the other parties should wish to do so. Cf. State v. Lee, 46 Or. 40, 43, 79 P. 577 (1905). This is a matter which I would leave to the discretion of the trial judge. Cf. Simmons v. Holm et al., 229 Or. 373, 406, 36......
- State v. Casey
- State v. Putney
-
State v. De Gaston, 27592.
...particular bearing upon appellant's guilt or innocence, nor upon the opinion of the witness upon that question. In the case of State v. Lee, 46 Or. 40, 79 P. 577, supreme court of Oregon granted a new trial on appeal from a judgment of guilty of the crime of larceny. It appeared that a witn......