State v. Hice, 117 N.C. 782 (1895)

Sept. 1895 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

117 N.C. 782

STATE v. JULIUS HICE, et. al.

Practice — Evidence of Good Character.

1. In all cases a person accused of a felony or misdemeanor, may, on the trial, offer testimony of his good character and this right does not depend upon the defendant’s having been examined as a witness in his own behalf.

2. In case a defendant offers testimony as to his good character, the prosecution may show the defendant’s bad character either by cross-examination or by other witnesses.

This was a CRIMINAL aotioN, tried before Poyhin, J., and a jury, at Fall Term, 1891, of Caldwell Superior Court, for the crime of fornication and adultery.

There was evidence offered on the part of the State tending to prove the guilt of both the defendants. The defendants were not offered as witnesses, and did not testify in their own behalf at the trial of the cause.

Upon the trial the defendants introduced James Miller as a witness, and asked the witness if he knew the general character of Hice, to which he answered, “Yes.” What is it? To this the State Solicitor objected. Objection was sustained by the court, the answer excluded, and the defendants excepted.

The counsel for the defendants then proposed to prove by said witness that the general character of the feme defendant whs good. The Solicitor objected. Objection sustained by the court, and defendant excepted.

There was a verdict of guilty. Rule for a new trial by defendants, assigning as cause for a new trial the exclusion of the evidence offered as to the general character of the defendant Hice, and also as to the general character of the feme defendant.

Motion was refused and defendant appealed.

The Attorney General, for the State.

Messrs. Geo. If. Folk, M. Silver and Lawrence Wake-field, for defendants (appellants).

Clark, J.,

“In all cases-a person accused of a crime of any grade, whether a felony or a misdemeanor, has a right to offer in his defense testimony of his good character.” State v. Henry , 50 N. C., 65; State v. Johnson, 60 N. C.. 151; State v. Laxton, 75 N. C., 216; 3 Am. & Eng. Enc., 111. This right is not dependent upon the defendant having been examined as a witness in his own behalf, and was recognized long before defendants were made competent to testify. It is limited to evidence of general character and opens the door, which would be otherwise closed, to the prosecution to show the defendant’s general bad character either by cross examination or by other witnesses. Bex v. Stannard, 7 Carr. & P., 673; 2 Hawkins P. C., Ch. 46, Sec. 194. In excluding the testimony there was error.

Error.