110 Ky. 105 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1901
Lead Opinion
Response of the court by
denying a rehearing.
Tibe appellee in this case, in the petition for rehearing, says the evidence, the admission of which was held in the opinion herein to be a reversible error, was admitted under and by authority of the opinion in Burdette v. Com., 93 Ky., 76, 18 S. W., 1011. It will be seen, however, from that ease, that the questions' asked and required to be answered1 were: First, whether he, being the defendant then testifying, had ever been convicted of stealing; second, whether he had been arrested for breaking into a house and stealing coffee, and. sent to the workhouse therefor. This court held that it was not error to require the defendant to answer' the questions; saying, in substance, that when the defendant voluntarily became a witness in his own behalf he should be treated in the same way as any other witness, and1 his testimony be subjected to the same test, by cross-examination, impeachment, or otherwise, as is the testimony of another called as- a wit
Dissenting Opinion
Dissenting opinion by
Parker v. Com. (Ky.) 51 S. W., 573, and Pennington v. Com. (Ky.) 51 S. W., 818, were not intended to conflict with«the well-settled rule in this State, or the general current of authority elsewhere. The court, after showing that the evidence was not competent as cross-examination, went on to show that it was also incompetent, under the statute, for the purpose of impeachment; it having been previously held that such evidence might be obtained from
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.