State v. Apley
North Dakota Supreme Court
From a judgment of the District Court for Stutsman County, Coffey, J., defendant appeals. The weight of the testimony in a given case depends quite as much upon the character of the witnesses as upon their number, and upon cross-examination it is competent to go fully into the character, habits, and antecedents of a witness, as bearing upon his credibility.
Read the full summary
From a judgment of the District Court for Stutsman County, Coffey, J., defendant appeals. The weight of the testimony in a given case depends quite as much upon the character of the witnesses as upon their number, and upon cross-examination it is competent to go fully into the character, habits, and antecedents of a witness, as bearing upon his credibility. Territory v. O’Hare, 1 N. D. 44, 44 N. W. 1003; State v. Kent (State v. Pan-coast) 5 N. D. 541, 35 L.R.A. 518, 67 N. W. 1052; State v. Malmberg, 14 N. D. 526, 105 N. W. 614; State v. Rozum, 8 N. D. 557, 80 N. W. 477. Collateral facts…
1DissentBurke, J.
The foregoing opinion does not meet with my approval, for two reasons: First, I do not believe the opinion is correct when it states that the cross-examination relative to the girl’s unchastity and immoral character was admissible as affecting her credibility as a witness; second, I believe under the facts in this case that such testimony was not material to any issue on trial, and therefore not admissible upon that ground. Defendant stands convicted of the crime of rape upon a girl under the age of consent. Our statute makes it a crime to carnally know a female under the age of sixteen,…
2Cases cited71 opinions
- State v. KentNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- People v. AbbottMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Bessette v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- People v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- People v. Chin HaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.