Dixon v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Patton

    55 P.2d 1290 (Mont. 1936)   Cited 12 times

    Hence, as observed in Rinehart v. State, 23 Ind. App. 419, 55 N.E. 504, note, 14 L.R.A. (n.s.) 733, the mother of a bastard child may be a prostitute and yet the defendant be the father of the child. Relationship of prosecutrix with other men outside of period of gestation is inadmissible. ( State v. Hammond, 46 Utah, 249, 148 P. 420, 422; Dixon v. State, 88 Okla. 172, 212 P. 600; Moore v. State, 125 Okla. 263, 257 P. 1100; Clark v. State, 144 Okla. 7, 289 P. 313; Mensing v. Croter, 209 Cal. 318, 280 P. 1026, 287 P. 336; State v. Ferguson, 157 Wn. 19, 288 P. 239.) Under the pretense of cross-examining a witness, one party to an action cannot make out his case by witnesses for the other side. ( State v. Shannon, 95 Mont. 280, 288, 26 P.2d 360; State v. Smith, 57 Mont. 349, 188 P. 644; McGonigle v. Prudential Ins. Co., 100 Mont. 203, 46 P.2d 687, 695.)

  2. Thomas v. United States

    121 F.2d 905 (D.C. Cir. 1941)   Cited 63 times
    In Thomas, the Court explicitly stated that it was interpreting "conviction within the meaning of this [statutory] provision", and held that, for purposes of that particular statute, there must either be a plea or verdict of guilty followed by a sentence and judgment.

    State v. Lavin, 80 Iowa 555, 562, 46 N.W. 553, 555; 1 Wigmore, Evidence, 2d Ed. 1923, § 133. United States v. Collins, 25 Fed.Cas. page 544, No. 14,835, 1 Cranch C.C. 592; Royer v. State, 21 Ala. App. 381, 108 So. 652, 653; Mensing v. Croter, 209 Cal. 318, 287 P. 336; Dixon v. State, 88 Okla. 172, 212 P. 600; State v. Ferguson, 157 Wn. 19, 288 P. 239; State v. Patton, 102 Mont. 51, 55 P.2d 1290, 104 A.L.R. 76; 1 Wigmore, Evidence, 2d Ed. 1923, § 133; Note 104 A.L.R. 84. On this appeal, appellant contends that evidence of sexual intercourse with another man prior to the period of conception was admissible for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of the mother.

  3. Gregory v. State

    126 Okla. 117 (Okla. 1927)   Cited 3 times

    "The jurors are the sole judges of the weight and credibility of the various witnesses, and their decision of a question of fact will not be disturbed by this court unless it is shown that they are in error as to such decision of fact, and this error must be clearly pointed out." Dixon v. State, 88 Okla. 172, 212 P. 600. The evidence discloses no act of intercourse or indiscretion between Bessie Myers and any other man than the defendant, Gregory.

  4. Moore v. State

    257 P. 1100 (Okla. 1927)   Cited 3 times

    The defendant assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to permit him to introduce the evidence of a witness, that such witness had intercourse with the prosecuting witness after the birth of the child. This was not error. This court has held in Dixon v. State, 88 Okla. 172, 212 P. 600, that other acts of intercourse with the prosecuting witness are not admissible unless they are shown to be within the period of gestation from the birth of the child. The testimony of the prosecuting witness was direct, positive, and reasonable, showing that the defendant was the father of her child.