State v. Vandiver
| Citation | 50 S.W. 892,149 Mo. 502 |
| Parties | STATE v. VANDIVER. |
| Decision Date | 09 May 1899 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Dunklin county; John G. Wear, Judge.
Edgar Vandiver was convicted of a crime, and he appeals. Reversed.
Ely & Kelso, for appellant. The Attorney General and K. B. Stone, for the State.
Defendant, being indicted, under the statute (Laws 1895, p. 149), for having carnal knowledge of an unmarried female, etc., was convicted, and fined the sum of $500; hence this appeal.
It is unnecessary to go into the errors assigned, except the following one: It is the prevalent rule in this state that, when a defendant is a witness, you may attack his general moral character, to wit, his reputation, in order to impeach him as a witness. State v. Grant, 79 Mo. 113; State v. Breeden, 58 Mo. 507; State v. Cliton, 67 Mo. 380; State v. Miller, 71 Mo. 590. But, while this is so, it is equally well settled, both in this state and elsewhere, that, in order to impeach a witness, you cannot attack his character or reputation by proof of specific criminal acts. State v. Grant, supra; State v. White, 35 Mo. 500; State v. Welsor, 117 Mo. 570, 21 S. W. 443; 1 Bish. New Cr. Proc. § 1117, and cases cited; State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245; 3 Rice, Ev. 599, 601, 602; 3 Greenl. Ev. (14th Ed.) § 214. In the case at bar, over the objection and exception of defendant, the state was allowed to introduce hearsay evidence; that is, what the witness had heard about defendant's having been guilty of specific acts of unchastity or immorality, and of his having been arrested therefor. Such evidence was plainly inadmissible, and erroneously admitted. There are cases where evidence of other crimes is admissible, but it is only where such other specific offenses have a tendency to shed light on the particular offense then at issue. For the error mentioned the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded. All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Berkowitz, 30174.
...that defendant cannot be interrogated about any fact not mentioned by him in his direct examination. State v. Banks, 258 Mo. 493; State v. Vandiver, 149 Mo. 502; State v. Sprey, 174 Mo. 569; State v. Philips, 233 Mo. 299; State v. Santino, 186 S.W. Stratton Shartel, Attorney-General, and Sm......
-
State v. Berkowitz
... ... which provide that a witness cannot be compelled to testify ... against himself, and a violation of the law which declares ... that defendant cannot be interrogated about any fact not ... mentioned by him in his direct examination. State v ... Banks, 258 Mo. 493; State v. Vandiver, 149 Mo ... 502; State v. Sprey, 174 Mo. 569; State v ... Philips, 233 Mo. 299; State v. Santino, 186 S.W. 967 ... Stratton ... Shartel , Attorney-General, and Smith B. Atwood , ... Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent ... (1) In ... arson ... ...
-
State v. Wilcox
... ... to show intent.' ... Since ... it thus appears that evidence of other offenses is not ... admissible in liquor cases to show intent, such evidence is ... prejudicial error in this case. State v. Young, 119 ... Mo. 495, 24 S.W. 1038; State v. Vandiver, 149 Mo ... 502, 50 S.W. 892; State v. Hale, 156 Mo. 102, 56 ... S.W. 881; State v. Hyde, 234 Mo. 200, 136 S.W. 316, ... Ann. Cas. 1912D, 191; State v. Duff, 253 Mo. 415, ... 161 S.W. 683; State v. Banks, 258 Mo. 479, 167 S.W ... 14 IV ... Under the evidence, we are of ... ...
-
State v. Wilcox
...liquor cases to show intent, such evidence is prejudicial error in this case. State v. Young, 119 Mo. 495, 24 S. W. 1038; State v. Vandiver, 149 Mo. 502, 50 S. W. 892; State v. Hale, 156 Mo. 102, 56 S. W. 881; State v. Hyde, 234 Mo. 200, 136 S. W. 316, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 191; State v. Duff, 2......