State v. Pugh

• Decision Date: 10 May 1922
• Docket Number: 472.
• Citation: 111 S.E. 849,183 N.C. 800
• Parties: STATE v. PUGH.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

111 S.E. 849

183 N.C. 800

STATE v. PUGH.

No. 472.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 10, 1922

Appeal from Superior Court, Randolph County; Brock, Judge.

Maryland Pugh was convicted of an attempt to burn an unoccupied dwelling, and he appeals. No error.

The character of a witness is subject to attack by cross-examination or by testimony of other witnesses, but his character is presumed to be good until the contrary is shown.

C. N Cox and Brittain, Brittain & Brittain, all of Ashboro, for appellant.

James S. Manning, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

CLARK C.J.

The only errors assigned are for matters occurring after the case had been submitted to the jury. There were no exceptions to the evidence or charge.

After the jury had been in deliberation for some time, they came into court for further instructions and asked the judge this question: "Is a witness' character considered good until proven bad in court?" to which the court replied "The witness' character is presumed to be good until the contrary is shown." This reply is undoubtedly correct. A witness' character is subject to attack as soon as he goes on the stand. If the opposite party wishes to attack it, he may do so by witnesses or by the manner of his cross-examination. If this is not done and there is nothing in the witness' own testimony which impeaches him, it may well be taken that his character is to be considered good.

In 40 Cyc. 2552 et seq., the authorities are summed up from the different states and hold that--

"A witness is presumed to speak the truth, but such presumption is, of course, subject to be overcome by any other matters tending to indicate that the witness is not worthy of credit and ceases where it appears that the witness has testified falsely as to a material matter."

Also:

"As a general rule, evidence is not admissible to sustain the credibility of a witness who has not been impeached, and where a witness has not been impeached, it is not permissible to support his testimony by other evidence which, although corroborative in its nature, bears on the credibility of the witness rather than on the issues in the cause."

Further it is held that--

"Evidence is not admissible to show the good character or reputation for truth and veracity of a witness whose character has not been attacked, and, where a witness has not been impeached, it is not permissible to support his testimony by showing that he had made statements out of court in conformity to his testimony, or that his testimony is consistent to that given by him in a previous proceeding, or that he had never made any statements contradictory to his testimony. But it is, of course, permissible to corroborate an unimpeached witness as to any fact in issue in the case."

The ground of all these decisions is that the character of a witness is to be deemed good unless it is impeached. It may be impeached either by direct testimony as to his character or by the manner of his examination, and in such cases the court will admit testimony in support of his good character, but it would be a useless consumption of time to put in testimony as to the good character of a witness which has not been impeached in any way.

In State v. Knotts, 168 N.C. 190, 83 S.E. 972, the court held that it was not error to refuse an instruction that the law presumed defendants were men of good character. While a defendant is presumed innocent of the particular charge for which he is being tried, there is no presumption as to his good character, and the mere fact that he is indicted and on trial is an attack upon his character when offered as a witness, as well as the fact that he is an interested witness.

The jury having again returned to the courtroom without having reached a verdict, and having informed the court that it stood eleven to one, the court then said to them:

"The court does not know which way the eleven stand, or who you are, or how the one stands, or who he is, and it does not concern the court to know. But the court instructs you that each of the jurors must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt before they can convict the defendant; it is the duty of the jury, if you can do so without doing violence to your conscience,

...