Starling v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Starling v. State

42 So. 798, 89 Miss. 328

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 15, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 42 So. 798 (Starling v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Starling v. State, 42 So. 798, 89 Miss. 328 (Mich. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Calhoon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

James Starling and Charles Starling were jointly indicted and jointly tried. James was put on the stand as a witness “for the defense;” that is, for both. It was manifest error to permit him to be asked whether he was “ever charged in any county of committing any offense before.” This question was objected to, the objection overruled, and exception taken; and it elicited an affirmative answer, that he had been twice charged — once with fighting, and once with unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors— but had not been convicted. 2 Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 982, cl. 3 (bottom of page 410). The statute under which this trial was had (Ann. Code 1892, § 1746, same as Code 1906, § 1923) narrows the rule of exclusion to the extent of allowing examination only as to convictions. As an appellate court we cannot say what effect was had upon the jury by this incompetent testimony elicited from an exculpatory witness.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Calhoon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

James Starling and Charles Starling were jointly indicted and jointly tried. James was put on the stand as a witness “for the defense;” that is, for both. It was manifest error to permit him to be asked whether he was “ever charged in any county of committing any offense before.” This question was objected to, the objection overruled, and exception taken; and it elicited an affirmative answer, that he had been twice charged — once with fighting, and once with unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors— but had not been convicted. 2 Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 982, cl. 3 (bottom of page 410). The statute under which this trial was had (Ann. Code 1892, § 1746, same as Code 1906, § 1923) narrows the rule of exclusion to the extent of allowing examination only as to convictions. As an appellate court we cannot say what effect was had upon the jury by this incompetent testimony elicited from an exculpatory witness.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 So. 798, 89 Miss. 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starling-v-state-miss-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack