State v. Mckay
| Decision Date | 07 July 1911 |
| Parties | STATE. v. McKAY. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
1. Witnesses (§ 244*)—Examination—Leading Questions.
The court may, in its discretion, allow a party to ask leading questions of his own witness because of his being hostile.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 795, 848; Dec. Dig. § 244.*]
2. Witnesses (§ 321*)—Impeaching One's Own Witness.
While one is not concluded by the testimony of his witness, but may prove the facts to be other than testified to by such witness, he may not impeach him, either by testimony as to his general character, or by proof of his prior inconsistent statements.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1099, 1100; Dec. Dig. § 321.*]
3. Criminal Law (§ 658*)—Appeal—Harmless Error.
Ordering the arrest for perjury of a witness for the state, in open court, immediately on his leaving the stand, because of testifying that what he testified to at the preliminary investigation was false and induced by prosecutrix, cannot be considered prejudicial to defendant as calculated to intimidate other witnesses from varying their testimony given at such examination; there being nothing in the record tending to show prejudice; but it being purely conjectural.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent Dig. § 1534 1/2; Dec. Dig. § 658.*]
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Marlboro County; J. W. De Vere, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Thomas McKay appeals from a conviction. Reversed.
Townsend & Rogers, for appellant.
J. Munroe Spears, for the State.
At the trial below, the state put up Knox Purvis, a witness who had been examined before the committing magistrate. He said that he knew nothing about the case; that the prosecutrix and her sisters had persuaded him to tell what he had told at the preliminary investigation, and that what he had there sworn was false. The prosecuting attorney then stated to the court that he had been taken by surprise, and asked to be allowed to examine the witness by leading questions, on the ground that he was hostile. This was allowed, against defendant's objection. Against objection of defendant's attorney, the court also allowed the state to use the testimony of the witness which had been taken down by the magistrate for the purpose of contradicting him; the court ruling as follows:
The rule is that the court may, in its discretion, allow a party to propound leading questions to his own witness for the reason, among others, that the witness is hostile to him.
[21 While a party is not concluded by the testimony given by his own witness, but may prove the facts to be other than as testified to by such witness, he is not permitted to impeach the credibility of his own witness either by testimony as to his general character, or by contradicting him; that is, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stanley
...in open court who has made contradictory statements amounting to perjury. The supreme court addressed this issue in State v. McKay, 89 S.C. 234, 71 S.E. 858 (1911): When the witness Purvis came off the stand, the solicitor ordered the sheriff, in open court, to arrest him and take him to ja......
-
State v. McDonald
...witnesses for the defendant and deprives the defendant of testimony which would otherwise have been submitted to the jury. State v. McKay, 89 S.C. 234, 71 S.E. 858; v. Williams, 124 La. 779, 50 So. 711; People v. Mahach, 224 P. 130; People v. Myers, 10 P.2d 499. Roy McKittrick, Attorney Gen......
-
State v. Gilbert
... ... rulings made by him ... It is a ... correct legal proposition that a party may not impeach his ... own witness. State v. Jackson, 7 S. C. 283, 24 Am ... Rep. 476; Bauskett v. Keitt, 22 S.C. 187; State ... v. Johnson, 43 S.C. 123, 20 S.E. 988; State v ... McKay, 89 S.C. 234, 71 S.E. 858. The presiding judge in ... the case at bar evidently had this principle of law in mind ... We do ... not think it was the purpose of appellant's counsel, ... however, to impeach the testimony of the witness, Mrs ... Mozingo, in one of the manners ... ...
-
State v. Trull
...error to permit cross-examination of a State's witness as to her previous conflicting testimony at the coroner's inquest. State v. McKay, 89 S.C. 234, 71 S.E. 858, relied upon by appellant, is not inconsistent because it involved the admission of evidence of the prior conflicting statements......