State v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 31 January 1876
• Citation: 74 N.C. 157
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE and EMMA HIATT v. W. W. PATTERSON

74 N.C. 157

STATE and EMMA HIATT

v.W. W. PATTERSON

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1876.

It is a well settled rule that a witness cannot be cross-examined as to any fact which is collateral and irrelevant to the issue, merely for the purpose of contradicting him, if he should deny it, thereby to discredit his testimony; and if a question is put to a witness which is collateral and irrelevant to the issue, his answer cannot be contradicted, but is conclusive against the party asking such question.

Therefore, where upon the trial of a proceeding in bastardy, upon the cross examination, the defendant asked the prosecutrix if she had ever had sexual intercourse with A, to which she replied that she had not: It mas held, That the question was collateral and irrelevant, and the answer of the prosecutrix was conclusive upon the defendant; and that there was no error in the ruling of the court below, in excluding the testimony of A, in contradiction thereof.

( State v. Patterson, 2 Ired. 246; Clarh v. Clark 65 N. C. Rep. 155, cited and approved.)

This was PROCEEDING IN BASTARDY, tried before Kerr, J. at December Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of GUILFORD county.

The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

There was a verdict of guilty, and the defendant appealed.

Mendenhall & Staples, for the defendant .

Attorney General Hargrove and J. T. Morehead, for the State .

BYNUM, J.

Upon her cross examination by the defendant, the prosecutrix denied that she ever had sexual intercourse with Madison Hiatt. Madison was afterwards introduced and testified that about four years before the child was begotten, and when he was a lad of eleven years of age, he had such intercourse with the prosecutrix. The issue was whether Patterson was the father of the child, and it was wholly collateral to this issue, what had transpired four years before between the prosecutrix and the witness. The rule of evidence is thus stated in 1 Greenleaf, sec. 449: “But it is a well settled rule, that a witness cannot be cross examined as to any fact which is collateral and irrelevant to the issue, merely for the purpose of contradicting him by other evidence, if he should deny it, thereby to discredit his testimony. And if a question is put to a witness which is collateral and irrelevant to the issue, his answer cannot be contradicted, but is conclusive against him.”

So in the State v. Patterson, 2 Ired., 346, where a witness on his cross...