Case ID: hill_3/html/0178-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Johnson vs. The People.
    Where a witness is sought to be impeached on the ground of his bad character, and the persons called for that purpose teslifj' that they are acquainted with his general character, they may then be asked whether, from such general chatacter, they would believe the witness on oath; and this, though they expressly disclaim all knowledge of the witness’ character for truth and veracity.
    
    On error from the Oneida general sessions, where Johnson was tried and convicted of an assault and battery. At the trial in the court below, one Warren was called as a witness for the prosecution, and gave material testimony. Afterward, the defendant called several witnesses for the purpose of impeaching Warren on the ground of bad character. One of the witnesses called for this purpose, on being asked whether he knew Warren’s general character, answered that he did ; but that he knew nothing as to his character for truth and veracity. The district attorney therefore objected that the witness could not be allowed to say, whether, from his knowledge of Warren’s character, he would believe him on oath ; and so the court below held. The defendant’s counsel excepted 5 and, after judgment, sued out a writ of error.
    
      G. Tracy, for the plaintiff in error, was stopped by the court.
    
      T. Jenkins, (district attorney,)
    contra, insisted, that the witness having expressly disclaimed all knowledge of Warren’s character in respect to truth, he was incompetent to express a belief as to whether Warren should or should not be credited on oath. He cited and commented on The People v. Mather, (4 Wendell, 229 ;) Jackson, ex dem. Boyd, v. Lewis, (13 John. Rep. 504, 505 ;) The People v. Rector, (19 Wendell, 569 ;) Bakeman v. Rose, (18 id. 146.) But,
   Per Curiam.

Acquaintance with general character is enough to warrant the usual enquiry, whether, from that general character, the witness would believe the person sought to be impeached on oath. It is not essential for this purpose that the character of the latter for truth and veracity should he known to the witness.

Judgment reversed. 
      
      
         See Cowen & Hill’s Notes to Phil. Ev. 767 to 770, and the cases there cited.