Summary
In Brethern v. State, 191 Miss. 151, 2 So.2d 798 (1941), this Court held that where the defendant asked the prosecution witness on cross-examination about the defendant's reputation for peace or violence, he thereby placed his reputation in issue, and, after himself introducing witnesses who testified on the question, could not complain of the introduction of evidence of his general reputation by the State. There is no merit in appellant's contention that the prosecuting attorney was trying to impeach his own witness by asking whether appellant had been convicted in New York on a policy or numbers charge.
Summary of this case from Hamilton v. StateOpinion
No. 34573.
June 9, 1941.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Where defendant asked state's witness on cross-examination about defendant's reputation for peace or violence, he thereby placed his reputation in issue and, after himself introducing witnesses who testified on the question, could not complain of introduction of evidence of his general reputation.
APPEAL from the circuit court of Lincoln county, HON. J.F. GUYNES, Judge.
Jas. F. Noble, of Brookhaven, for appellant.
The court erred in permitting the state to introduce evidence in an effort to prove the bad reputation of appellant.
The evidence as a whole was wholly insufficient to prove appellant guilty beyond every reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis.
Geo. H. Ethridge, Assistant Attorney-General, for appellee.
There is no proof in palliation of this horrible crime, except that some witnesses testified that the appellant was a good worker and had, prior to this crime not been guilty, so far as the witnesses knew, of other crimes. The evidence is indisputable upon any logical reasoning that the appellant is guilty.
The appellant makes the contention (1) that the proof was insufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury and (2) that the court erred in permitting the state to introduce evidence of the general reputation of the defendant.
We have carefully examined and weighed the evidence, and we are of opinion the question of guilt or innocence of the defendant was properly a question for the jury and the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.
On the second question, it appears that the defendant, on cross-examination of one of the state's witnesses, asked this witness about the reputation of the defendant for peace or violence. Defendant thereby placed his reputation in issue. Thereafter defendant himself introduced a number of witnesses who testified on that question in his behalf. Appellant is in no position to complain on this point.
Affirmed.