DANAHER, Circuit Judge.
Appellant and Oliver James were jointly indicted, three counts charging, on February 29, 1956, possession of a Government check stolen from the mails,, forged endorsement, and uttering of the check so forged. Three additional counts, charged like offenses on March 31, 1956. James entered a plea of guilty to three counts as to one transaction whereupon the counts as to his alleged participation, in the other occurrence were dismissed.. Appellant went to trial, and this appeal follows his conviction.
One Doris Johnson had lived where appellant made his abode until his father-invoked the aid of police to bring about, her ejectment. She testified that appellant had given her a Government check, upon which she had forged an endorsement in the name of the payee and that appellant waited outside a liquor store-while she and James entered the store and cashed the check. Thereafter having delivered the proceeds to appellant, she received $9 as her share.
One Kay Glenn testified that appellant had beaten her; she had seen appellant in possession of the check involved in the March 31, 1956, transactions; she and appellant waited outside a clothing store while James entered and purchased clothing with the forged check; James, upon his return, gave to the appellant money, a pair of trousers and two shirts. The Government also elicited from her that she had seen appellant with yet other checks, none of which was identified, and for all that appeared, they might not have been stolen or forged or uttered.
James, called as a defense witness, identified both cheeks, but denied appellant’s alleged complicity, the alleged participation by Kay Glenn, and that appellant had received the proceeds from the cashing of either check. He insisted he [125]*125would not give appellant “no money from nothing” for “He was going with my wife. I stopped playing with him.” Confronted with a statement he had given to Government agents, James acknowledged he had signed it, observed that it referred to five checks, but repudiated the entire writing.
Appellant denied all participation whatever in the various occurrences. The Johnson woman, he said, had been in “some kind of training school,” and to avoid her mother’s charges that he might be “harboring this girl” he had his father send for the police to take her away. As to the Glenn woman, “I couldn’t marry her, see; I had a wife already, see. I couldn’t marry her.”
Thus, the Government’s case, developed through two alleged accomplices who had grounds for hostility, purported to demonstrate a pattern of conduct, a continuing scheme, or plan, directly denied by the appellant. Against that background, appellant on cross-examination was asked:
“And in this court, in Criminal No. 846-56, you were convicted of the same offense as you are being tried for today, possession of a check knowing that it was stolen, forgery and uttering?” (Emphasis supplied.)
Appellant had been convicted but had appealed. That case had nothing to do with the offenses charged in the instant case except that similar counts had been set forth which dovetailed with the “scheme” or “pattern” here said to have been followed. It must be conceded that the Government could not here seek conviction because of what had occurred in some prior case. Defense counsel urged that the Government might not properly “use a prior conviction and try to relate it to this one, to the one he is being tried for here.” When the trial judge answered that the Government “is not trying to do that,” the prosecutor replied “I am saying it is a similar offense.” In the course of further colloquy the following occurred:
“The Court: You see, what you are trying to get at, I think, is this: Even though you had not put character in evidence, the Government could show related offenses for the purpose of showing intent or scheme, or a plan, but you have now put character in evidence.
* * * * *
“The Court: And which gives the Government the right to explore every angle of character and to bring out all the details.”
After a recess the prosecutor continued:
“Q. I think you answered the last question about that conviction.
“Now, in a case in this court in January, the case went to trial on the 23rd of January, 1957, which case I prosecuted against you, you were convicted of possession of a check, were you not, knowing that it was stolen, and you were also convicted of forgery and uttering?
“A. Your Honor, there is a decision pending in the Court of Appeals about that.
“The Court: Now, you answer the question, and then make your explanation.
“The Witness: That is right.
“The Court: Now, if you want to make some explanation, go ahead.
“The Witness: There is an opinion in the Court of Appeals pertaining to this whole matter about the jurisdiction in this matter, see, and this is pending appeal now, and I just wanted the Court to protect my rights, and I just wanted to know whether the District Attorney was within his rights to ask that question.
“The Court: Well, you answer any questions that are asked you unless I rule on objection that they are not admissible, and then you can make whatever explanation you want to make.
“The Witness: Well, I just wanted to put it on the record, your Honor."
[126]*126The colloquy only tends to emphasize the degree of involvement of this appellant in what the jury must have deemed, as did the trial judge himself, the Government’s purpose to show appellant’s continuing scheme or pattern in the instant case by his prior conviction for “the same offense.”
D.C.Code § 14-305 (1951), provides in pertinent part:
“No person shall be incompetent to testify, in either civil or criminal proceedings, by reason of his having been convicted of crime, but such fact may be given in evidence to affect his credit as a witness, either upon the cross-examination of the witnesses or by evidence aliunde * * * >>
Clearly it would be improper, for impeachment purposes, to show accusation, .arrest, or indictment as well against the accused in a criminal trial as against a witness in any case, civil or criminal.1 We have pointed out in furtherance of this principle that where the time for appeal had not expired, evidence of a conviction is inadmissible.2 In the Beasley case, objection having been voiced, the trial judge immediately ruled that the .jury should not consider the question or answer. We concluded that the error had been cured by his prompt instruction that the jury disregard the episode. We .are satisfied that the intendment of our Code, supra, requires that there be a final conviction before “such fact may be given in evidence.” It has seemed to us
“wholly illogical and unfair to permit a defendant to be interrogated about a previous conviction from which an appeal is pending.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
DANAHER, Circuit Judge.
Appellant and Oliver James were jointly indicted, three counts charging, on February 29, 1956, possession of a Government check stolen from the mails,, forged endorsement, and uttering of the check so forged. Three additional counts, charged like offenses on March 31, 1956. James entered a plea of guilty to three counts as to one transaction whereupon the counts as to his alleged participation, in the other occurrence were dismissed.. Appellant went to trial, and this appeal follows his conviction.
One Doris Johnson had lived where appellant made his abode until his father-invoked the aid of police to bring about, her ejectment. She testified that appellant had given her a Government check, upon which she had forged an endorsement in the name of the payee and that appellant waited outside a liquor store-while she and James entered the store and cashed the check. Thereafter having delivered the proceeds to appellant, she received $9 as her share.
One Kay Glenn testified that appellant had beaten her; she had seen appellant in possession of the check involved in the March 31, 1956, transactions; she and appellant waited outside a clothing store while James entered and purchased clothing with the forged check; James, upon his return, gave to the appellant money, a pair of trousers and two shirts. The Government also elicited from her that she had seen appellant with yet other checks, none of which was identified, and for all that appeared, they might not have been stolen or forged or uttered.
James, called as a defense witness, identified both cheeks, but denied appellant’s alleged complicity, the alleged participation by Kay Glenn, and that appellant had received the proceeds from the cashing of either check. He insisted he [125]*125would not give appellant “no money from nothing” for “He was going with my wife. I stopped playing with him.” Confronted with a statement he had given to Government agents, James acknowledged he had signed it, observed that it referred to five checks, but repudiated the entire writing.
Appellant denied all participation whatever in the various occurrences. The Johnson woman, he said, had been in “some kind of training school,” and to avoid her mother’s charges that he might be “harboring this girl” he had his father send for the police to take her away. As to the Glenn woman, “I couldn’t marry her, see; I had a wife already, see. I couldn’t marry her.”
Thus, the Government’s case, developed through two alleged accomplices who had grounds for hostility, purported to demonstrate a pattern of conduct, a continuing scheme, or plan, directly denied by the appellant. Against that background, appellant on cross-examination was asked:
“And in this court, in Criminal No. 846-56, you were convicted of the same offense as you are being tried for today, possession of a check knowing that it was stolen, forgery and uttering?” (Emphasis supplied.)
Appellant had been convicted but had appealed. That case had nothing to do with the offenses charged in the instant case except that similar counts had been set forth which dovetailed with the “scheme” or “pattern” here said to have been followed. It must be conceded that the Government could not here seek conviction because of what had occurred in some prior case. Defense counsel urged that the Government might not properly “use a prior conviction and try to relate it to this one, to the one he is being tried for here.” When the trial judge answered that the Government “is not trying to do that,” the prosecutor replied “I am saying it is a similar offense.” In the course of further colloquy the following occurred:
“The Court: You see, what you are trying to get at, I think, is this: Even though you had not put character in evidence, the Government could show related offenses for the purpose of showing intent or scheme, or a plan, but you have now put character in evidence.
* * * * *
“The Court: And which gives the Government the right to explore every angle of character and to bring out all the details.”
After a recess the prosecutor continued:
“Q. I think you answered the last question about that conviction.
“Now, in a case in this court in January, the case went to trial on the 23rd of January, 1957, which case I prosecuted against you, you were convicted of possession of a check, were you not, knowing that it was stolen, and you were also convicted of forgery and uttering?
“A. Your Honor, there is a decision pending in the Court of Appeals about that.
“The Court: Now, you answer the question, and then make your explanation.
“The Witness: That is right.
“The Court: Now, if you want to make some explanation, go ahead.
“The Witness: There is an opinion in the Court of Appeals pertaining to this whole matter about the jurisdiction in this matter, see, and this is pending appeal now, and I just wanted the Court to protect my rights, and I just wanted to know whether the District Attorney was within his rights to ask that question.
“The Court: Well, you answer any questions that are asked you unless I rule on objection that they are not admissible, and then you can make whatever explanation you want to make.
“The Witness: Well, I just wanted to put it on the record, your Honor."
[126]*126The colloquy only tends to emphasize the degree of involvement of this appellant in what the jury must have deemed, as did the trial judge himself, the Government’s purpose to show appellant’s continuing scheme or pattern in the instant case by his prior conviction for “the same offense.”
D.C.Code § 14-305 (1951), provides in pertinent part:
“No person shall be incompetent to testify, in either civil or criminal proceedings, by reason of his having been convicted of crime, but such fact may be given in evidence to affect his credit as a witness, either upon the cross-examination of the witnesses or by evidence aliunde * * * >>
Clearly it would be improper, for impeachment purposes, to show accusation, .arrest, or indictment as well against the accused in a criminal trial as against a witness in any case, civil or criminal.1 We have pointed out in furtherance of this principle that where the time for appeal had not expired, evidence of a conviction is inadmissible.2 In the Beasley case, objection having been voiced, the trial judge immediately ruled that the .jury should not consider the question or answer. We concluded that the error had been cured by his prompt instruction that the jury disregard the episode. We .are satisfied that the intendment of our Code, supra, requires that there be a final conviction before “such fact may be given in evidence.” It has seemed to us
“wholly illogical and unfair to permit a defendant to be interrogated about a previous conviction from which an appeal is pending. If the judgment of conviction is later reversed, the defendant has suffered, unjustly and irreparably, the prejudice, if any, caused by the disclosure of the former conviction. We therefore hold that the pendency of an appeal prevents the prosecution from proving a previous conviction for impeachment purposes; and that the District Court erred in admitting evidence concerning Campbell’s conviction when his appeal therefrom had not been determined.”3 (Emphasis supplied.)
It fairly should be noted that neither counsel called to the attention of the visiting judge the rule which we had announced in the Campbell case. Had he been so advised, he could have instructed the jury as had been done in the Beasley case. The appellant here had, and admitted, a “record” of final convictions of petty larceny and the like, to be sure. It is possible the jury would have returned a guilty verdict in any event. However, we cannot escape the conclusion that the jury here might well have given far more than “cursory consideration”4 to the prosecutor’s questions, framed as we have shown, against the background of the case as we have summarized it. Under all the circumstances we cannot here say as we did in the Campbell case that the error had slight, if any, effect. Rather, we are [127]*127satisfied that the consequences of the error were sufficiently grave that a new trial must be ordered.
Reversed and remanded.