Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 N.C. 157

State v. . Patterson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 5, 1876

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1876-01-05

This was PROCEEDING IN Bastardy, tried before Kerr, J. at December Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of Guileord-county. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court- There was a verdict of guilty, and the defendant appealed-

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1890

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-01-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*158 ByNüM, J.

¶1 Upon her cross examination by the defendant,. ' the prosecutrix denied that she ever had sexual intercourse with Madison Hiatt. ■ Madison was afterwards introduced and testified that about four years before the child was begotten, and when he was a lad of eleven years of age, he had such intercourse with the prosecutrix. • The issue was whether Patterson was the father of the child, and it was wholly collateral to this issue, what had transpired four years before between the prosecutrix and the witness. The rule of evidence is thus stated in 1 Greenleaf, sec. 449: “But it is a well settled rule, that a witness cannot be cross examined as to any fact which is collateral and irrelevant to the issue, merely for the purpose of contradicting him by other evidence, if he should deny it, thereby to discredit his testimony. And if a question is put to a witness which is collateral and irrelevant to the issue, his answer cannot be contradicted, but is conclusive against him.”

¶2 So in the State v. Patterson, 2 Ired., 346, where a witness on his cross examination was asked whether the prosecutor had not paid him for coming from another State to be a witness, and he answered that he had not, it was held to be incompetent for the defendant to introduce witnesses to prove his declarations, that he had been so. paid. Clark v. Clark, 65 N. C. Rep., 155.

¶3 It was, therefore conclusive upon the defendant, when the prosecutrix denied having had sexual intercourse with the witness, and the court should not have allowed the testimony of Madison Hiatt. If the prosecutrix had sworn falsely in answer to this collateral matter, it would not have been perjury. 1 Greenleaf, sec. 448

¶4 Had the testimony of Madison Hiatt been competent, the remarks upon it by his Honor, would have constituted error, for however improbable or unreasonable the story, its credibility was for the jury alone. But as it was incompetent, the defendant has received no prejudice thereby.

¶5*159 Tlie other exceptions of the 'defendant *-wei’e":'iiot--nuieh pressed, and áre untenable.

¶6 There is no error.

¶7 Per Curiam. --Judgment'affirmed.

/74/nc/157 · .json · Public domain