State v. Miller
| Decision Date | 30 June 1890 |
| Parties | STATE v. MILLER. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
For majority opinion, see ante, 832.
I dissent from the opinion filed in this case, and shall only speak of two matters, and of these only because the facts are not fully stated. Concede that the court erred in refusing permission to the defendant to interrogate Mortimer as to whether he had not been in the penitentiary two or three times, still no complaint was made of this ruling in the motion for a new trial, and the error is therefore not before us for review. The defendant did complain, in his motion for a new trial, that the court permitted incompetent witnesses to testify, and that the court admitted illegal evidence offered by the state; but he made no complaint whatever that the court excluded evidence offered by himself. The evidence excluded was of no value except as affecting the credit to be given to the witness. It was, in substance and effect, evidence offered by the defendant, and, as exclusion of evidence offered by him was not made a ground for a new trial, the error in excluding it should not be considered in this court. I do not understand the opinion before filed in this case to hold that Mortimer was an incompetent witness. He was certainly competent to testify on behalf of the state; for he was not a party to this record. Besides this, he entered a plea of guilty before he was called as a witness. It seems to be held that his evidence should have been excluded on the ground that he had made a corrupt contract with the state. The evidence of such a contract, if any there is, is that elicited from Mortimer on cross-examination, and that is this: I fail to discover anything in this evidence which shows, or has the least tendency to show, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Woods
...it was given in consideration of a promise of the circuit attorney to recommend a punishment of one year in the city jail. State v. Miller, 13 S.W. 1051, 100 Mo. 606. Cross-examination of the defendant on matters not part of his examination in chief are prohibited by law. R. S. 1929, sec. 3......
-
State v. Oien
... ... prejudicial error when the witness answers that he has been ... arrested or charged with crime. People v. Elster, 2 ... Cal. Unrep. 315, 3 P. 884; Marx v. Hilsendegen, 46 ... Mich. 336, 9 N.W. 439; People v. Wolcott, 51 Mich ... 612, 17 N.W. 78; Kober v. Miller, 38 Hun, 184; ... Van Bokkelen v. Berdell, 130 N.Y. 141, 29 N.E. 254; ... Sullivan v. Newman, 63 Hun, 625, 43 N.Y. S. R. 893, ... 17 N.Y.S. 424; V. Loewer's Gambrinus Brewery Co. v ... Bachman, 45 N.Y. S. R. 48, 18 N.Y.S. 138; People v ... Carolan, 71 Cal. 195, 12 P. 52; Smith v. State, ... ...
-
State v. Larkin
... ... was it shown that she committed a single act, made a single ... gesture, or uttered one word of advice; and, if this be true, ... then the trial court should have directed a verdict of not ... guilty. State v. Nelson, 98 Mo. 414; State v ... Miller, 100 Mo. 606; 12 Cyc. 186. One accused of a crime ... should not be convicted on a mere suspicion of guilt ... State v. Lentz, 184 Mo. 243. The unbroken line of ... expression of this court is that a judgment of conviction ... upon insufficient evidence should be reversed. State v ... ...
-
The State v. Myers
... ... court, and in its opinion stated, "The cross-examination ... of defendant in a criminal case must be confined to those ... matters referred to by him in his examination in chief;" ... but it has been held in the case of State v. Miller, ... 100 Mo. 606, and State v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 159, that ... the witness may be asked a question similar to the one asked ... defendant in this case, not, however, for the purpose of ... showing that the witness has been convicted of crime, but as ... questions affecting the general ... ...