Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Ohio 322

Gray v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1829

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1829-12-15

Polly Gray was indicted for robbery. On the trial, at November term, 1829, the prosecuting attorney called to the stand a negro, as a witness in behalf of the state. The counsel for the prisoner objected to his admission, on the ground of ineompetency, under the statute regulating black and mulatto persons. The prisoner appeared, upon inspection, and of such opinion was the court, to be of a shade of color between the mulatto and white.

Decided 1829-12-15

*By the Court:

¶1Ttie witness was improperly admitted. The statute compels .courts of justice to reject black and mulatto witnesses, where a *323white person is a party. The statute is one which a courtis called upon to execute with reluctance, yet where a case is presented, the court has no alternative but to yield to the expression of the legislative will. Three descriptions of persons are designated, by name, in the statute — white, black, and mulatto; and these three are well known, by the same terms, in common life; but we doubt whether we can refine upon these obvious distinctions, or whether good policy, or good sense, requires us to raise the necessity for further discrimination. We are unable to set out any other plain and obvious line or mark between the different races. Color alone is sufficient. We believe a man, of a race nearer white than a mulatto, is admissible as a witness, and should partake in the privileges of whites.

¶2We are of opinion that a party of such a blood entitled to the privileges of whites, partly because we are unwilling to extend the disabilities of the statute further than its letter requires, and partly from the difficulty of defining and of ascertaining the degree of duskiness which renders a person liable to such disabilities.

¶3Judgment reversed.

/4/ohio/322 · .json · Public domain