Ware v. State
| Decision Date | 06 December 1926 |
| Docket Number | 26144 |
| Citation | 110 So. 503,145 Miss. 247 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WARE v. STATE. [*] |
. (Division B.)
1. CRIMINAL LAW. Permitting impeaching testimony of important defense witness on immaterial matter held reversible error.
Where testimony of defendant's witness was of the gravest importance, permitting impeaching testimony on collateral and immaterial issue constituted reversible error.
2. WITNESSES. Whether matter is collateral, so as to forbid impeachment of witness thereon, depends on whether cross-examining party would be allowed to prove it.
The test as to whether a matter is collateral, within meaning of rule forbidding impeachment of witness therefor, is whether cross-examining party would be allowed to prove it as part of, or in support of, his case.
APPEAL from circuit court of Rankin county, HON. G. E. WILSON Judge.
Gustean Ware was convicted of murder, and she appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Richardson & Pierce, for appellant.
The court erred in admitting the testimony of R. E. Murray offered in rebuttal by the state over the objections of defendant wherein he contradicted witness Eastland on an immaterial matter.
Rufus Creekmore, Special Assistant Attorney-General for the state.
Counsel argue that the court was in error in admitting the testimony of state witness R. E. Murray. On this point it is necessary only to state that the proper predicate was laid for the contradiction of the defense witnesses, Eastland and Walker, and the defendant herself.
As to the witness Eastland, on cross-examination by the state, he denied that he made the statement that he was confident that Gustean Ware did the killing and this rebuttal as to him was certainly proper, as proving contradictory statements made by him off the witness stand. His testimony with reference to the failure of the defense witness Walker to make a statement at the time of Gustean Ware's arrest with reference to Fat Sam saying he had blown the negro's brains out, was admissible for the same reason.
As to all of this rebuttal testimony, whether admissible or inadmissible, there is absolutely nothing to show that the rights of defendant had been in any way prejudiced thereby.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Argued orally by Richardson & Pierce, for appellant, and Rufus Creekmore, Special Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
Appellant, Gustean Ware, a negro woman, was indicted and convicted in the circuit court of Rankin county of the murder of John Henry Holyfield, a negro boy about eighteen years of age, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for life. From this judgment, she prosecutes this appeal.
The homicide took place at night on the back porch of a negro dance hall. One eyewitness, William Thomas, testified to what occurred between appellant and deceased at the time of the killing. His testimony, if true, proved that appellant was guilty of murder. There was other evidence, circumstantial in character, which tended to corroborate the testimony of the witness Thomas. This is true especially of the testimony of the witness Clarence Newell, who testified for the state. His testimony was, in substance, that immediately after the shooting appellant came into the dance hall and put a pistol in witness' pocket and said, "Take this gun;" that some one was shot out there, and requested that "you all ought to go out and see something about it." Appellant's defense was that she did not shoot the deceased; that she was not even present when he was shot and killed. John Eastland, testifying in behalf of appellant, stated that he was in the dance hall at the time of the shooting; that he heard the shots; that when the shots were fired she ran into the room; that she was just inside of the door when the last shot was fired; that appellant did not go to the state's witness Clarence Newell and put anything in his pocket; in other words, that the facts and circumstances were such that appellant could not have fired the shots which killed the deceased. Appellant testified as a witness in her own behalf. She denied that she knew the deceased; that she had an altercation with him; that she was present when he was shot, or knew anything about who shot him.
It will be seen at once that the testimony of the witness John Eastland was very important to appellant. If true, it established that appellant could not have fired the shots which killed the deceased. On cross-examination of the witness Eastland, the district attorney asked the witness whether it was true or not that after the shooting he stated to R. E. Murray that he (the witness) was confident that appellant had shot and killed the deceased. The witness answered that it was not true--that he made no such statement. Over the objection of the appellant, the state was permitted to introduce R. E. Murray as a witness in rebuttal. He testified, over the appellant's objection, that after the shooting, in a conversation with the witness Eastland, the latter stated to him that he was confident appellant did the shooting.
Appellant contends that the admission of such testimony on behalf of the state was error; that the effect of it was to permit the state to contradict a most material witness for appellant on a wholly immaterial and collateral issue....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Parkinson v. State
-
Cofer v. State
...... on matters collateral to the issues involved, and that test. is as simple as it is intelligent and just, and he who runs. may read and understand it. Would the cross-examining party. be allowed to prove it as a part or in support of his case. . . Ware. v. State, 145 Miss. 247, 110 So. 503; Bell v. State, 38 So. 795; Garman v. State, 66 Miss. 196, 5 So. 385; Williams v. State, 73 Miss. 820, 19. So. 826; Davis v. State, 85 Miss. 416, 37 So. 1018;. Magness v. State, 106 [158 Miss. 495] Miss. 195, 63. So. 352 Id., 103 Miss. 30, 60 So. 8; ......
-
Cody v. State
...... . . Cofer. v. State, 158 Miss. 498; Williams v. State, 73 Miss. 820, 19 So. 826; Garner v. State, 76 Miss. 520, 25. So. 363; Jeffries v. State, 77 Miss. 760, 28 So. 948; Bell v. State (Miss.), 38 So. 795; Magness. v. State, 106 Miss. 195, 63 So. 352; Ware v. State, 145 Miss. 247, 110 So. 503; Walker v. State, 151. Miss. 862, 119 So. 796. . . This. rule laid down by practically all of the authorities was most. flagrantly violated by the learned counsel for the state in. the cross-examination of Mrs. Trannie Gregory, wife of the. ......
-
Butler v. State
...... recognized that it is not competent or permissible to. contradict or impeach a witness on an immaterial or. collateral matter. . . Wilkinson. v. City of Jackson, 170 So. 901; Cofer v. State, 130. So. 511, 158 Miss. 493; Walker v. State, 119 So. 796, 151 Miss. 862; Ware v. State, 110 So. 503, 145. Miss. 247; Williams v. State, 19 So. 826, 73 Miss. 820; Magness v. State, 63 So. 352, 106 Miss. 195;. [179 Miss. 867] Garner v. State, 76 Miss. 520, 25. So. 363; Jefferies v. State, 77 Miss. 760, 28 So. 948; Bell v. State, 38 So. 795. . . It is. well ......