State v. Travis
| Decision Date | 05 January 1926 |
| Parties | STATE v. TRAVIS. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Branch, Judge.
Linwood O. Travis was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor, under Laws 1923, c. 24, and he brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
George I. Haselton, of Manchester, for the State.
J. Joseph Doherty, of Concord, for respondent.
MARBLE, J. "This presents the ordinary case of evidence admissible for one purpose, but not for another." Cobb v. Follansbee, 79 N. H. 205, 210, 107 A. 630, 632. The law is fundamental that the state cannot offer evidence of the bad character of a respondent, except to rebut his evidence of good character (State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 289, 290, 24 Am. Rep. 69), and even then bad character cannot be shown by particular acts. State v. Palmer, 65 N. H. 216, 218, 20 A. 6. It is also true that proof that a respondent has previously committed an offense similar to that for which he is on trial is not evidence that he is guilty of the offense charged. State v. La Rose, 71 N. H. 435, 436, 437, 52 A. 943; State v. Lapage, supra.
If, however, the respondent waives his privilege by voluntarily taking the stand, he may be cross-examined regarding any relevant matter which tends to discredit him as a witness. State v. Fogg, 80 N. H. 533, 535, 119 A. 799; 1 Wig. Ev. § 196. The inquiry objected to in the present case was competent on the issue of the respondent's integrity. Constantine v. Grenier, 81 N. H. 550, 127 A. 656; Gutterson v. Morse, 58 N. H. 165. The respondent did not ask to have consideration of the evidence limited to that issue, and consequently takes nothing by his general exception. Tuttle v. Dodge. 80 N. H. 304, 310, 116 A. 627; Cobb v. Follansbee, supra.
Exception overruled.
All concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sturtevant
...The jury was instructed to consider the evidence solely upon the issue of credibility. This was proper cross-examination. State v. Travis, 82 N.H. 220, 131 A. 598; See also Constantine v. Grenier, 81 N.H. 550, 551, 127 A. 656. On redirect examination the respondent's counsel undertook to sh......
-
State v. Mannion
...by taking the witness stand, he waives it in its entirety, and can claim no greater immunity than any other witness. State v. Travis, 82 N. H. 220, 131 A. 598; State v. Fogg, 80 N. H. 533, 535, 536, 119 A. 799, and cases cited. His "voluntary offer of testimony upon any fact is a waiver as ......
-
State v. Kelley
...this has been liberally construed to justify admission of all crimes except misdemeanors. State v. Cote, supra; see State v. Travis, 82 N.H. 220, 131 A. 598 (1926). Such a standardless policy places many criminal defendants in a difficult Due process includes the right of an accused to test......
-
State v. Cote, 5579
...trial either to establish guilt or to show that a defendant would be likely to commit the crime with which he is charged. State v. Travis, 82 N.H. 220, 131 A. 598; Lane v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 320 F.2d 179, 181 (4th Cir. 1963); Whitty v. State, 34 Wis.2d 278, 149 N.W.2d 557, 563 (......