Burdette v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 16 — INDICTMENT - APPEAL FROM PAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT. The defendant in a criminal case, when he testifies in 1ns own behalf, should not be cross-examined as to prior acts of misconduct.
Read the full summary
Case 16 — INDICTMENT - APPEAL FROM PAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT. The defendant in a criminal case, when he testifies in 1ns own behalf, should not be cross-examined as to prior acts of misconduct. (Gale v. The People, 26 Mich., 160; The State v. Saunders, 14 Oregon, 312; State v. Lurch, 12 Oregon, 102; State v. Huff, 11 Nov., 28; Gifford v. The People, 87 111., 214; Parley v. The State, 57 Ind., 334; Pletcher v. The State, 49 Ind., 132; The People v. Thomas, 9 Mich., 314; Clarke v. State, 78 Ala., 480; Gargill v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. Law Rep., 149; Cooley Con. Lim., 385; 1 Green. Ev., sec. 457.) 1.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OP THE COURT.
The only ground relied on for reversal of judgment Against appellant, indicted and convicted for the crime of larceny, is, that the Commonwealth’s Attorney was permitted to ask, and he was required to answer, the following questions on cross-examination of himself as a witness in his own behalf:
1. Whether he had ever before been convicted of stealing.
2. Whether he had been arrested for breaking into a house and stealing coffee and sent to the work-house therefor.
It has been settled by this court that when a defendant in a criminal prosecution…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. PfefferleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1886
3Cited by14 opinions
- Wallace v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1899
- State v. Fong LoonIdaho Supreme Court · 1916
- Grigsby v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1945
- Howard v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
- State v. ColoffMontana Supreme Court · 1951
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.