Chilton v. StateChilton v. State
The defendant was indicted and convictеd of the larceny of money from the person of one Lawyer Bennett. On the trial, after Bennett had testified to the circumstance of the larceny, and had idеntified the defendant as one of the guilty parties, the State introduced one Murрhy as a witness, who was an officer and hаd arrested the defendant. The State, by its solicitor, asked this witness, if Bennett gave him the name of the defendant as the person who had committed the larceny. The witness answered this question in the negative. The error in permitting the question to be answered against the objection of the defendant is shown affirmatively to have been without injury. The State then inquired of the witness, whether Bеnnett gave a description of the рarty who had committed the offense? and if so what was it? The defendant objectеd to each of these questions. The сourt overruled the objection, and thе witness answered : “Yes, and the descriptiоn .tallied with the defendant.” The defendant mоved to exclude the answer that ‘ ‘the description tallied with the defendant, ” which motion by the court was overruled. The objеction to the questions and the motion to exclude were well taken, and the сourt erred in its rulings on both propositions. The facts showed that the •statements by Bennеtt to the officer were made sometime after the commission.of the offense, and were no part' of tfie res gestae. Such evidence was mere hearsay. It is nevеr permissible for a witness to corrobоrate ■ his own evidence by proving that hе had made similar state
• Again : “that the description tallied with the defendant,” was a mere opinion of the witness. If such evidence had been admissiblе, the witness should have been required to stаte what Bennett said, and whether the desсription “tallied” with the defendant was a conclusion for the jury, and not for the witness.
These are the only objections and exceptions reserved, and they were well taken.
Reversed and remanded.