TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Busby v. State

Smith Busby v. State.

Busby v. State, 1913 OK CR 303, 136 P. 598
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 29, 1913
Docket
No. A-1872.
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
136 P. 5981913 OK CR 30310 Okla. Crim. 3431913 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 350
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
WITNESSES — Cross-Examination of Accused — Prior Conviction. The state, in a criminal case, has the right to ask the defendant, as a witn'ess in his own behalf, upon cross-examination, whether or not he has been convicted of a crime, for the purpose of affecting his credibility.
Summary
Appeal from County Court, Jefferson County; B. T. Price, Judge. Smith Busby was convicted of pointing a pistol, and brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of conviction entered on the 14th day of October, 1912. The charge was that the defendant, on or about the 27th day of June, 1912, did willfully and unlawfully point a pistol at another, to wit, M. F. Eaird. The jury left the punishment to the court. The sentence of the court was that the defendant serve three months in the county jail, and pay a fine of $50.

*344 The information is sufficient, and no contention is made that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence; the sole ground of complaint being that the court erred in admitting certain evidence.

The defendant was a witness in his own behalf, and was asked upon his cross-examination if he had ever been convicted of a felony. He answered that he had been so convicted seventeen years ago. Counsel now contend that the conviction was too remote to be considered, and that the court should not have permitted this evidence to go to the jury. Our statute provides (section 5046, Rev. Laws 1910) that a witness may be discredited by showing on cross-examination his conviction of a criminal offense, and section 5882, Rev. Laws 1910, provides that “the rules of evidence in civil cases are applicable also in criminal cases.” The defendant had elected to testify as a witness in his own behalf, and, having done so, the county attorney had a right to ask him on cross-examination any question pertaining to the mat'ter at issue, or that would go to his credibility as a witness.

Key v. State, ante, 135 Pac. 950 , and cases cited.

Upon a careful consideration of the record, there seems to be no reason to doubt that the verdict of the jury in this case was entirely in harmony with the interests of justice.

The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1916: 11919: 11923: 11926: 219162026peak 1926 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Maddox v. State1916 OK CR 70, 158 P. 883
  2. Reagan v. State1926 OK CR 312, 250 P. 435
  3. Smith v. State1926 OK CR 273, 246 P. 1104
  4. Hendricks v. State1923 OK CR 41, 212 P. 330
  5. Ex Parte Carroll217 S.W. 382 (Tex. Crim. App. 1919)

Most recent

  1. Reagan v. State1926 OK CR 312, 250 P. 435
  2. Smith v. State1926 OK CR 273, 246 P. 1104
  3. Hendricks v. State1923 OK CR 41, 212 P. 330
  4. Ex Parte Carroll217 S.W. 382 (Tex. Crim. App. 1919)
  5. Maddox v. State1916 OK CR 70, 158 P. 883

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Key v. State, 1913 OK CR 285, 135 P. 950 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list