This case is pending in this court on defendant’s appeal from a judgment of the criminal court of Greene county, convicting’him of a common assault. The information charged that the defendаnt made a felonious assault upon one Mrs. Chumley, with the intent to forcibly rape and carnally knоw her. The trial was before a jury and an instruction was given to the effect that the testimony did not authorize a conviction for felonious assault, but authorized a conviction for common assault, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty and assessed the punishment at a fine of $1.
The prosecuting witness, Mrs. Chumley, furnished the testimony in behalf of the state, and the defendant in his own behalf. There was a direct cоnflict in their testimony. The prosecuting witness claiming that the defendant took hold of her against her will аnd kissed her. This testimony was contradicted by the defendant.
On cross-examination of Mrs. Chumley, she was asked if she had employed any attorneys in the case. The question was objected to and the оbjection sustained. She was then asked if she contemplated bringing a civil suit against the defendant рredicated on the facts she had testified to. On objection of the prosecuting attornеy, this testimony was also excluded. The defendant’s attorney then offered to prove by the witness thаt she was contemplating bringing a civil action against defendant predicated upon the facts she had testified to, and that she had employed certain attorneys to prosecute that suit for
A wide range of cross-examination should be allowed to show the motive interest or animus of a witness. [State v. Steele,
' The jury have the right both in civil and criminal cases to consider the interest which the witness may have in the result of the litigation. [State v. Darling, suprа; State v. Thornhill,
It is proper to ask a witness in a criminal case if he has not a suit pending against the accused growing out of the matter complained of in the criminal prosecution. [Peоple v. Drolet,
In Koenig v. Union Depot Co., supra, the action was for damages for the negligеnt killing of plaintiffs’ child. Lee Meriwether was the attorney for plaintiffs and was a witness in their behalf. The defendant offered to prove by him that he had a financial interest in the result of the suit. The testimony was excluded and the Supreme Court held that the trial court committed error in so doing.
In State v. Elkins, supra, the state called a witness and proved by him that two of the witnesses who had testified for the defendant bore bad reputations
In Waddingham v. Hulett, supra, the plaintiff commenced suit by attachment and a plea in abatement was filed, but afterwards withdrawn. Certain witnesses testified for the defendant, and the plaintiff offered to shоw that the defendant had conveyed to the witness his interest in the lands attached. The testimony was еxcluded, and the Supreme Court in discussing the.action of the trial court said: “In this we think the court committed error, as it was competent for the plaintiff to affect the credit of defendant’s two mоst important witnesses, by showing that they had an interest in the result of the suit. This evidence would have shown that they had a direct interest in such result, since a verdict for the defendant discharged the lands to which they held the legal title from all liability to being subjected to the plaintiff’s debt.”
The rejection of such testimony does not necessarily result in a reversal in every instance. The case may have bеen made by other testimony of such force that the rejection of the testimony would be held an immaterial error. But in this case the accusation is one easily made 'and as has well beеn said, hard to defend against, no matter how innocent a man may be. The only substantial testimony in supрort of the state’s case was given by the prosecuting witness herself. The jury assessed the nominal finе of $1, and if the court had permitted the defendant to prove her motive for the proseсution, and that she contemplated
The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.