State v. BradyState v. Brady
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Brаdy was indicted and convicted for carnal abuse of one Ida Williams, a girl under the age of sixteen years. The principal ground alleged for reversal is that there was error in the ruling of the trial judge in excluding a conversation, called for on the cross-examination of Benjаmin Murphy, the chief of police of Jersey City, which he had with the Williams girl, and which, presumably, if it had been permitted to have been given, would have been contradictory of the testimony of the girl given upon the witness-stand. The conversation, however, was properly excluded for two reasons — first, it wаs not referred to in the direct examination of the chief of police and therefore was not a proper cross-examinаtion; second, what was said to the chief by this girl, assuming it to have been contradictоry of her testimony on the stand, was competent solely for the purpose of impeaching her credibility and could only have been put in for that purpose after calling the girl’s attention to it, and this was not done. It was not competent to prove it as an admission made by hеr. The state, not the girl, was the party, and no admission made by her could bind thе state. In the prosecution of criminal offences the state does not assert a private right, or maintain an individual interest, in any such sense as to be affected or bound by hearsay statements of him who has been the victim or object of the criminal act. There is no such legal identity or privity between the person so situated and the state as to render admissions made by him competent evidence in behalf of the party charged with the commission of the crime. Commonwealth v. Densmore. 94 Mass. 538.
It is cоntended on behalf of the plaintiff in error that the trial judge erred in excluding certain questions asked of one Archiboíd, a witness produced оn the part of the defence, with relation to the reputation оf the defendant. The witness was the vice president of an iron comрany of which the defendant was an employe. The first question overruled was this: “Do you know what his [the defendant’s] general reputation for morаlity and chastity is?” Objection was made on behalf of the state and the quеstion was excluded. No exception, however, was taken to the ruling, and as the case comes up on strict bill of exceptions and not under the statute of 1898 the ruling is not properly here for consideration.
The next question asked was: “Do you know what his [the defendant’s] reputаtion is among his fellow-workmen as to his chastity and morality?” This question was objеcted to, overruled and exception taken and allowed. In оur judgment it was properly excluded, for the reason that it was too nаrrow. The defendant was entitled to give evidence as to his reputаtion in the community in which he lived for chastity and morality but not his reputation аmong a selected number from such community.
The next question asked the witness was this: “Do you know what his [the defendant’s] reputation is in the community in which he livеs and works?” This question was overruled on objection and exceptiоn taken and allowed. We think it was properly overruled, becausе it was too broad; it calls for his general reputation and not his reputation as to chastity and morality.
The only other assignment of error is directed to the charge of the court to the jury, but our examination of the charge discloses no error in it.
The judgment should be affirmed.