Court Opinion

ID: 9711909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:41:55.959337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:08.271784
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Arterburn, J.
I concur in affirming the judgment of the trial court, but not with all the reasoning in the majority opinion. I think the question is much simpler than therein presented. Ind. Code §35-1-31-6 (Burns 1975) states:
“General moral character — Credibility of witnesses. — In all questions affecting the credibility of a witness, his general moral character may be given in evidence.”
This statute controls the issue here regardless of any common law principles. To me the question in the case is simply resolved by the fact that the commission of a robbery or theft makes one a felon. Ipso facto a felon is not a person of good moral character. The statute says that a person’s moral character reflects upon his credibility.
When a party presents a person as a witness, he vouches for his character and good moral credibility. It is proper for the opposing party on cross examination to impeach such witness by showing that he is a felon and that includes an accused who has taken the witness stand. At common law a felon was not a competent witness because at common law a felon had no credibility. 58. Am. Jur., Witnesses § 137 (1948). By statute we have made a felon competent, but certainly by statute we have not changed his lack of credibility. See Black v. State, (1965) 246 Ind. 550, 207 N.E.2d 627; Bolden v. State, (1927) 199 Ind. 160, 155 N.E. 824; Griffith v. The State, (1894) 140 Ind. 163, 39 N.E. 440; Drew v. The State, (1889) 124 Ind. 9, 23 N.E. 1098; Robinson v. The State, (1882) 84 Ind. 452.
Givan, C.J., concurs.