Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

46 Or. 40

State v. Lee

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1905

Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1905-02-20

<p>Proof of Other Crimes Not Incidental' to the One Charged.</p> <p>1. Although proof of the commission of other crimes is sometimes admissible as incidental to the crime charged, it is never allowable to show that defendant has committed, or is said to have committed, crimes not connected with the one for which he is on trial.</p> <p>For example, in a prosecution for larceny of a calf, after a witness had admitted that he did not feel kindly toward defendant, he should not have been permitted to state that his feelings were influenced by the supposition that defendant had stolen cattle in the neighborhood where he lived, for such a statement was merely an expression of the opinion that defendant was a thief, and was not connected with the disappearance of the calf, nor did it explain the bias of the witness.</p> <p>Showing Character of Defendant.</p> <p>2. Evidence of defendant’s character or his general reputation is not admissible until he has raised the issue.</p> <p>Witness — Explaining Bias.</p> <p>3. Where it appears that a witness is biased he may state in general terms the reasons for his feeling, but details should be avoided.</p>

Relies on State v. McDaniel · State v. O'Donnell · Fincher v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1905-02-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1974

4 state decisions

2019051910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Bean

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The defendant was tried and convicted of the larceny of a calf, the property of one Dennis. From the judgment sentencing him to the penitentiary he appeals.

¶31. Dennis was a witness for the State, and gave material testimony tending to support the theory of the prosecution. On cross-examination he was asked, “Your feelings have not been good.toward him (the defendant) ?” and replied, “No.” He was' then asked, “You and Mr. Boyd are known to be the enemies of Mr. Lee?” and answered, “I don’t know how it is known. Q. What is the fact about it ? A. I don’t bear him any ill will, only it is the general supposition up there”— Here objection was made to the witness further answering the question, but it was'overruled, and he continued: “That Mr. Lee has been getting away with cattle. There has been a good many cattle missing up there for years, and for that reason I have no particular friendship for him, or any one else that is in that kind of business.” A motion was made to strike out all the testimony of the Witness after the words “ill will,” but it was overruled, the court saying, “I think he has a right to explain why.” These rulings were erroneous, because the evidence objected to tended to show the commission by the defendant of crimes other than the one charged against him, or to prove his general bad character. Proof of the commission of a crime unconnected with that alleged in the indictment or information cannot be given against a defendant: State v. Baker, 23 Or. 441 (32 Pac. 161); State v. O'Donnell, 36 Or. 222 (61 Pac. 892); State v. McDaniel, 39 Or. 161, 173 (65 Pac. 520).

¶42. Nor is evidence of defendant’s general reputation or bad character admissible until he has himself put his character in issue: Wharton, Crim'. Ev. § 64.

¶53. It is argued by the State that the testimony objected to was the legitimate result of the cross-examination, and merely tended to explain the grounds of the feelings or bias of the witness toward the defendant. The hostility of a witness to the party against whom he is testifying affects his credibility, and the extent thereof is a proper subject of cross-examination. When *43such examination discloses that the witness is biased or hostile to the party against whom he is testifying, he has a right to state, without entering into particulars, the grounds of such bias or ill will: State v. Warren, 41 Or. 349 (69 Pac. 679); Ellsworth v. Potter, 41 Vt. 687; Fincher v. State, 58 Ala. 215. But here the witness denied that he had any ill will or bias toward the defendant, except such as might arise from the general supposition that he had been committing other crimes. The evidence did not go to .an explanation of the personal feelings of the witness. Its manifest tendency was to show the general reputation of the defendant, and not to explain the ill will or bias of the witness.

¶6Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered. Reversed.

/46/or/40 · .json · Public domain