Blakely v. Bearden

3 Citing cases

  1. Goo v. Fat

    35 Haw. 827 (Haw. 1941)   Cited 3 times

    It cannot be questioned that the doctrine sanctioned by this court in its former opinion has the support of the decisions of numerous courts. (See Blakely v. Bearden, 281 P. 952; The People v. Evans, 40 N.Y. 1; Foreman v. Baldwin, 24 Ill. 298; Evans v. The State, 7 Baxt. 12 [Tenn.].) 1 Greenleaf, Evidence (14th ed.), p. 470, says: "Where the disability is annexed to the conviction of a crime by the express words of a statute, it is generally agreed that the pardon will not, in such a case, restore the competency of the offender; the prerogative of the sovereign being controlled by the authority of the express law." (See also 2 Hargrave's Juridical Arguments, p. 221.)

  2. Goo v. Hee Fat

    34 Haw. 123 (Haw. 1937)   Cited 7 times

    The statute prescribes a rule of evidence which may not be modified or annulled by executive order. ( Blakely v. Bearden, 281 P. 952; People v. Evans, 40 N.Y. 1. See also 70 C.J. 105.) Plaintiff's writ of error was issued in these causes on April 5, 1935, more than two years subsequent to the orders of dismissal.

  3. Luna v. State

    513 P.2d 1399 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 2 times

    For example, 21 O.S. 1971 § 506[ 21-506] provides that no person who has been convicted of perjury shall thereafter be received as a witness. In Blakely v. Bearden, 139 Okla. 237, 281 P. 952, this Court held that § 506 is a rule of evidence which remains unchanged by executive pardon. Other examples are the proof of a prior conviction to impeach a witness; the proof of "good moral character" to obtain American citizenship; and the application of the Oklahoma second and subsequent offense statutes.