The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-05-07
JUDD, C.J., FEEAB AND WHITING, u.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY WHITING, J,


OPINION OF THE COURT BY WHITING, J.
The defendant was indicted and tried First Circuit
Court August Term 1891 for the crime of sodomy, and the
jury verdict guilty of attempt commit that
crime Numerous executions were taken during trial and
allowed but of the do not deem 1t
necessary give them detail The prosecuting witness
was accompce the crime and, crossexamnatlon the
defendants asked the witness dparagng questions to
show collateral which tended disgrace and degrade the
witness and show that he led vicious and immoral life and
totally deprayed but the court refused to allow the
questions.
The prosecuting witness was asked crossexamnation
Now while you living in Honolulu did you ever have any
money you have been living down there near Smiths
Bridge A. Yes sir. Q. Where did you get it, tell the
TRUTH A. stole it" The question then asked, How
many did you steal money! The court refused to allow
the question The defendant then offered show by
examination from the witness mouth, that he
habitua thief and was stepped which
allowed by the After the prosecuting had stated
he had also committed the crime with another boy
NJ g. the defendant asked GLOW did to do it with
boy The refused to allow the question. The defen
claimed showed moral turpitude. Questions to
immortality with loose also disalowed by the court
defendant duly Such be
set forth here in detail.
It does appear ground refused per-
NIT the witness be collateral matters which
tended to disgrace him 1t IS claimed on the part OF the defend
that the made It's ruling matter of law and not of
discretion In People Webster 1879 n Y 81 is laid down
that 1T elementary rule that witness be specially
Intercepted upon examination regard vicious
criminal of his life and may be compelled to unless
he privilege The which dsparaging ques
TONS ISSUE may be put
discretionary with the and its rulings sub
ect unless appears that the discretion
abused"
Real People, 40 n Y. 281
Foster o. People, IS Mich. 273;
To,7itory a. Hare, A N, w Rep. 1907 N. d.
Thomas a. State (Texas) 81 SO. w. Rep 631
"a judge bound permit inquiry when it
him in the exercise of sound discretion promote
ends of Justice and exclude it when it unjust
the witness and uncaed for by the circumstances of the case
Ct W. Turnpike Co. a. LoOmis, 80 n Y 1872;
Ryan o. People, 70 N. Y. 6O2;
State a. McCartey, Mimi 76
Subject to the constitutional privilege refuse
questions the which may tend cmnate
him. proper show collateral facts that might tend
criminate disgrace degrade the witness if such other facts
tend to weaken his credibility.'
State Pancoast CN. d. 81 N w. Rep. 1885,
The People T. Lrring, 95 N. Y. 541
Ryan 4. People, 70 n Y. 594.
Within reasonable limits witness may crossexamnation
be thoroughly sed upon his character and aneceden The
has discretion how far proprety will allow this to
edone given and WILL should prevent needless
wanton abuse of the power wilbur Hood, 16 Mich A
Other competent witnesses may be asked the reputation
of particular witness for truth and veracy in his neighbor
hood (and, in jurisdiction, his general moral char
ace but specific acts cannot be shown IN this way or every
witness presumed prepared defend his general
reputation for truth and veaciy, but specific charges
The rule different croexamination of the witness
himself. He may be questioned specific and
matters showing his general moral character in far this
might affect has credby The reason OF the rule excluding
questions other witnesses to specific acts of the witness
whose character in question does apply here because the
witness being examined himself is called upon defend
anything which he is not prepared to defend and his
binding the and be rebUtted by
witnesses and thus the danger of collateral avoid
Moreover this could be done, dishonest
would the standing honest and
cases cod NOT be imneacbed His moral character can he
Gas distinguished from his character directly truth
and verac) because experience shows that person general
degraded character worthy of belief of general
good better that the witness be shown up
what he is in the interests of truth and the rights of the parties
than that witnesses themselves be exempt from having their
lives exposed and this exposure will limited
by discretion of the judge and the interests of the party