State v. Steen

• Decision Date: 08 June 1923
• Docket Number: 402.
• Parties: STATE v. STEEN.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

117 S.E. 793

185 N.C. 768

STATE v. STEEN.

No. 402.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

June 8, 1923

Appeal from Superior Court, Richmond County; Long, Judge.

John Steen was convicted of selling liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Stacy and Hoke, JJ., dissenting.

The testimony of a character witness is confined to the general reputation of the person whose character is attacked or supported in the community in which he lives.

The defendant was convicted upon two bills of indictment charging sales of liquor to one Harry Sapphire. It appears from the evidence that conditions as to "bootlegging" in that town and county were such that the good citizens of the town of Rockingham organized a club to secure the enforcement of laws, among them W. N. Everett, now Secretary of State and Walter L. Parsons, formerly a Senator, and other prominent and well-known citizens of the state, as appears from the affidavits in the record, of which Mr. Everett's is a sample; that--

"there has been such widespread violation of the liquor laws in Richmond county, and that by reason of the numerous reports of violations and the inability of the officers of the town and county to arrest the violators of such laws, on account of such officers being generally known and the violators of such laws through their organization being kept posted on the movements of such officers, the boards of town and county commissioners, through their mayor and chairman respectively, have agreed to have the violation of the liquor laws investigated by an outside representative and to prosecute any and all persons dealing in liquor."

His affidavit further states:

That the "boards of town and county commissioners have been actuated by the highest motives in the employment of an investigator to ascertain violation of the liquor laws; that such action on the part of said boards has been for the best interests of the town and county and with regard and pursuant to their duties as such commissioners"; and that "the McLendon Club is an organization of Christian men of Richmond county, formed for the purpose of fostering Christian ideals and to secure enforcement of all laws of the state," and was not "an organization to persecute any person or persons but to prosecute any and all violators of the law."

There are a large number of affidavits in the record to sustain the action taken to procure the investigation of such violations. In order to ferret out the guilty parties a detective from Atlanta was secured, with whose aid evidence was laid before the grand jury, indictments were found, and on trial the defendant was convicted of violation of the liquor laws in two cases.

Knowing that an attack would naturally be made upon the character of the detective, A. G. Corpening, one of the town commissioners, went to Atlanta, after the preliminary hearing of the case against the defendant and shortly before the trial in the superior court, to investigate as to his character. At the trial the following question was asked "Mr. Corpening, have you made any investigation of Mr. Sapphire's character?" Objection by defendant, overruled, and exception. To the above question the witness replied: "I made a trip to Atlanta and made a personal investigation, and from my investigation I would say his character was good." This exception presents the only question necessary to consider in this action.

W. R. Jones, of Rockingham, for appellant.

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

CLARK C.J.

The evidence as to the guilt of the defendant is practically without exception, but the defendant insists that this matter as to the character of the witness is fatal. The defendant's counsel in his brief raises no objection to the fact that the usual preliminary question was not put to this witness, "Do you know the general character of the witness Sapphire?" but bases his objection entirely upon the character of the testimony given in by Mr. Corpening:

"Mr. Corpening swears that Sapphire's character was good and states the ground for his testimony: That he made the trip to Atlanta, made a personal investigation, and from his investigation would say that Sapphire's character was good."

From the record and the large number of affidavits filed, it is apparent that conditions were such in Rockingham and Richmond county that the good citizens organized what was called the "McLendon Club" to secure the enforcement of laws of the state. The board of commissioners of the town and county thought it necessary, in order to break up the great amount of whisky dealing in said town and county, to employ a detective. They obtained, from the detective agency in Atlanta, Harry Sapphire, one of their agents. He came to Rockingham, went to work, and secured much of the evidence upon which the defendant was convicted. His residence was in Atlanta. The defendant contends that Corpening's testimony as to the evidence of general reputation obtained in this manner is not admissible. There is evidence of Corpening's high character. It would seem that, being sent there by the officials of the town and by the good people who organized for the purpose of enforcing the law, his motives could not be questioned; but, however that might be, it was for the jury, his fellow citizens, to weigh his testimony. It was just to the defendant as well as to the state to ascertain the character of the witness Sapphire. Evidence as to Sapphire's character could not otherwise well have been placed before the jury other than by the method used. Depositions by witnesses living in Atlanta would not have been competent, nor could witnesses have been brought from there as to Sapphire's character, for that would have required proof of the character of such witnesses themselves. The jury were entitled to know Sapphire's character, which could not have been proven in any better way than by sending, as was done, a reliable, well-known citizen of the county and of the town to investigate his standing and general character in Atlanta, where he lived. It is reasonable that under these circumstances Corpening was better informed as to the general character of Sapphire than the casual acquaintances who are usually brought forward as character witnesses.

In North Carolina the testimony of a character witness is confined to the general reputation of the person whose character is attacked, or supported, in the community in which he lives. State v. Parks, 25 N.C. 296; State v. Perkins, 66 N.C. 126; State v. Gee, 92 N.C. 756; State v. Wheeler, 104 N.C. 893, 10 S.E. 491; State v. Coley, 114 N.C. 879, 19 S.E. 705, and numerous other cases since. Reputation is the general opinion, good or bad, held of a person by those of a community in which he resides. This is eminently a matter of hearsay, based upon what the witness has heard or learned, not as to any particular acts, but as to the general opinion or standing in the community.

Corpening's testimony could not be excluded as hearsay, for that is general reputation. The question was, What was Sapphire's general reputation in Atlanta where he lived? If a resident of Atlanta had been brought as a witness at this trial and put upon the stand, he might have testified that he had never heard anything against Sapphire's character in Atlanta, and his testimony would have been admissible; its weight being left to the jury as was Corpening's.

Corpening himself was well known to the jury. He stated, in effect, that he had been to Atlanta; that he had investigated as to the reputation, that is, the general character, that Sapphire bore there; and his evidence, being based upon such investigation, as he states, was certainly not inferior to the statements of casual acquaintances or others who are so often put upon the stand as character witnesses and whose testimony is necessarily based upon hearsay, that is, what people say in regard to the person whose character is in question.

The defendant relied strenuously upon what was said in State v. Parks, 25 N.C. 296. In that case Jonathan Worth was put upon the stand to impeach the character of one Lane. Worth, upon cross-examination, stated:

That he "did not know Lane's general character in his neighborhood; that he was not certain that he knew his general character in the county; that he did not know whether a majority of those he heard speak spoke well or ill of it, but that he had heard a great many respectable men speak well of Lane's character and a great many equally respectable speak ill of it."

In that case the court held that the testimony of Worth was erroneously received because--

"the witness is not to be discredited, because of the opinions which any person or any number of persons may have expressed to his disadvantage, unless such opinions have created or indicate a general reputation of his want of moral principle. The impeaching witness must, therefore, profess to know the general reputation of the witness sought to be discredited, before he can be heard to speak of his own opinion or of the opinions of others, as to the reliance to be placed upon the testimony of the impeached witness. State v. Boswell, 13 N.C. 209; Downey v. Smith, 1 Dev. & Bat. [ 18 N. C.] 62."

In that case Jonathan Worth expressly stated that he did not know the general character of Lane; that he had heard a great many people speak both for and against him. It is very certain therefore that his testimony as to the character of Lane should have been rejected.

The present case is in strong contrast. The witness testified that he went to Atlanta to ascertain what was the general reputation of the impeached witness; that he had investigated, and that implies, of course, that under all these circumstances he had made careful...