Wallace v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Wallace v. State

155 So. 197, 170 Miss. 457, 1934 Miss. LEXIS 152

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedJune 5, 1934

DocketNo. 31287.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 So. 197 (Wallace 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

Wallace v. State, 155 So. 197, 170 Miss. 457, 1934 Miss. LEXIS 152 (Mich. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant was convicted of having intoxicating liquor in his possession, the evidence as to which was conflicting.

*459 He introduced evidence to the effect that his reputation "as a peaceable, law-abiding citizen” was good. The state introduced evidence in rebuttal thereof, and one of its witnesses said that he (meaning the appellant) "has a reputation of being a bootlegger,” i. e., one who carries liquor about on his person -for sale in violation of law.

A motion to exclude this evidence was overruled. The brief of counsel for the appellant is addressed solely to this ruling.

The appellant having put his character in issue, the state had the right to introduce evidence relative thereto, particularly as to the trait of character involved in the commission of the crime charged. Bootlegging of intoxicating liquor necessarily implies possession thereof by the bootlegger. Consequently, for one to have the reputation of being a bootlegger necessarily includes the reputation of possessing intoxicating liquor. The appellant’s specific contention is that the evidence necessarily implies that he had been guilty of other violations of the liquor laws, and was therefore incompetent under the rule forbidding the introduction of evidence of other specific offenses disconnected from ■ the one under consideration. This may be true, but no further than would have been the case had the witness said that his reputation for possessing liquor in violation of the law was bad.

Affirmed.

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

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant was convicted of having intoxicating liquor in his possession, the evidence as to which was conflicting.

*459 He introduced evidence to the effect that his reputation "as a peaceable, law-abiding citizen” was good. The state introduced evidence in rebuttal thereof, and one of its witnesses said that he (meaning the appellant) "has a reputation of being a bootlegger,” i. e., one who carries liquor about on his person -for sale in violation of law.

A motion to exclude this evidence was overruled. The brief of counsel for the appellant is addressed solely to this ruling.

The appellant having put his character in issue, the state had the right to introduce evidence relative thereto, particularly as to the trait of character involved in the commission of the crime charged. Bootlegging of intoxicating liquor necessarily implies possession thereof by the bootlegger. Consequently, for one to have the reputation of being a bootlegger necessarily includes the reputation of possessing intoxicating liquor. The appellant’s specific contention is that the evidence necessarily implies that he had been guilty of other violations of the liquor laws, and was therefore incompetent under the rule forbidding the introduction of evidence of other specific offenses disconnected from ■ the one under consideration. This may be true, but no further than would have been the case had the witness said that his reputation for possessing liquor in violation of the law was bad.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 So. 197, 170 Miss. 457, 1934 Miss. LEXIS 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-state-miss-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack