Crawford v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Crawford v. State

74 N.W. 537, 98 Wis. 623, 1898 Wisc. LEXIS 187

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 5, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 74 N.W. 537 (Crawford v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crawford v. State, 74 N.W. 537, 98 Wis. 623, 1898 Wisc. LEXIS 187 (Wis. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

The following opinion was filed March 22, 1898:

Cassoday, 0. J.

The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted of the crime of adultery, and sentenced to imprison[624]*624ment in the state prison for the term of two years, and to reverse that judgment he’sues out this writ of error.

Upon the trial his wife was admitted as a witness in behalf of the state, and allowed to testify. This was manifest •error. It is well settled that “ neither husband nor wife can be a witness at common law for or against the other in prosecutions” for adultery. 2 Whart. Orim. Law (10th ed.); § 1786; 1 G-reenl. Ev. § 334; 3 Jones, Ev. § 751; Mills v. U. S. 1 Pin. 73; Schoeffler v. State, 3 Wis. 823, 844. “ With certain exceptions, it was, at common law, against public policy to allow the wife to be a witness for or against her husband in any action, civil or criminal, to which she was not a party.” Smith v. Merrill, 75 Wis. 462. The case at. bar does not come within any exception. Nor is there any statute in this state making the wife a competent witness against the husband in such a case. Certainly sec. 4072, R. S. 1878, does not. See Farrell v. Ledwell, 21 Wis. 182; Carney v. Gleissner, 58 Wis. 674; Selden v. State, 74 Wis. 271; Smith v. Merrill, 75 Wis. 461; Horner v. Yance, 93 Wis. 352; Lanctot v. State, ante, p. 136.

By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The following opinion was filed March 22, 1898:

Cassoday, 0. J.

The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted of the crime of adultery, and sentenced to imprison[624]*624ment in the state prison for the term of two years, and to reverse that judgment he’sues out this writ of error.

Upon the trial his wife was admitted as a witness in behalf of the state, and allowed to testify. This was manifest •error. It is well settled that “ neither husband nor wife can be a witness at common law for or against the other in prosecutions” for adultery. 2 Whart. Orim. Law (10th ed.); § 1786; 1 G-reenl. Ev. § 334; 3 Jones, Ev. § 751; Mills v. U. S. 1 Pin. 73; Schoeffler v. State, 3 Wis. 823, 844. “ With certain exceptions, it was, at common law, against public policy to allow the wife to be a witness for or against her husband in any action, civil or criminal, to which she was not a party.” Smith v. Merrill, 75 Wis. 462. The case at. bar does not come within any exception. Nor is there any statute in this state making the wife a competent witness against the husband in such a case. Certainly sec. 4072, R. S. 1878, does not. See Farrell v. Ledwell, 21 Wis. 182; Carney v. Gleissner, 58 Wis. 674; Selden v. State, 74 Wis. 271; Smith v. Merrill, 75 Wis. 461; Horner v. Yance, 93 Wis. 352; Lanctot v. State, ante, p. 136.

By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 N.W. 537, 98 Wis. 623, 1898 Wisc. LEXIS 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-state-wis-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack