sentations,18 receiving stolen goods,14 selling intoxicating liquors,15 adultery and other sexual offenses.16 There is however authority maintaining that evidence of such acts is not to be admitted in prosecutions for incest where the charge is based on a single act.17

199. Proof of Subsequent Offenses.-There is some dispute as to whether proof of subsequent offenses is ever admissible on the prosecution for a prior offense. According to some authorities evidence of offenses committed subsequent to the act charged is never admissible.18 Others, however, favor the admissibility of such proof,at least in the case of offenses arising out of sexual intercourse; it being considered that subsequent acts disclose the amorous disposition of the parties.19 Some cases, however, hold that, unlike evidence of prior acts of intercourse between the same parties, evidence of acts occurring subsequently to the one charged is inadmissible.20 Where the issue is the fraud or innocence of one in doing an act having the effect of misleading another, it is relevant to show other similar acts of the same person having the same effect to mislead, at or about the same time, or connected with the same subject-matter; and for this purpose, it has been held that subsequent representations

13. People v. Bercovitz, 163 Cal. 636, 126 Pac. 479, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 667; People v. Weil, 243 Ill. 208, 90 N. E. 731, 134 A. S. R. 357; State v. Briggs, 74 Kan. 377, 86 Pac. 447, 10 Ann. Cas. 904, 7 L.R.A.(N.S.) 278; State v. Hetrick, 84 Kan. 157, 113 Pac. 383, 34 L.R.A.(N.S.) 642; Com. v. Jeffries, 7 Allen (Mass.) 548, 83 Am. Dec. 712; People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 61 N. E. 286, 62 L.R.A. 193; People v. Marrin, 205 N. Y. 275, 98 N. E. 474, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 754.

14. People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 61 N. E. 286, 62 L.R.A. 193; People v. Marrin, 205 N. Y. 275, 98 N. E. 474, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 754; State v. Rountree, 80 S. C. 387, 61 S. E. 1072, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 833; State v. Kelley, 65 Vt. 531, 27 Atl. 203, 36 A. S. R. 884.

Notes: 105 A. S. R. 983; 8 Eng. Rul. Cas. 85.

15. State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 24 Am. Rep. 69.

v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 24 Am. Rep. 69; People v. Marrin, 205 N. Y. 275, 98 N. E. 474, 43 L.R.A.(N.S.) 754; Sykes v. State, 112 Tenn. 572, 82 S. W. 185, 105 A. S. R. 972; Manning v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 302, 65 S. W. 920, 96 A. S. R. 873; State v. Bridgman, 49 Vt. 202, 24 Am. Rep. 124; State v. Kelley, 65 Vt. 531, 27 Atl. 203, 36 A. S. R. 884.

Notes: 62 L.R.A. 330; 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 236; 8 Eng. Rul. Cas. 86.

17. Skidmore v. State, 57 Tex. Crim. 497, 123 S. W. 1129, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 466; Pridemore v. State, 59 Tex. Crim. 563, 129 S. W. 1112, 29 L.R.A. (N.S.) 858.

18. State v. Letourneau, 24 R. I. 3, 51 Atl. 1048, 96 A. S. R. 696. Notes: 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 668; 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 239.

19. Sykes v. State, 112 Tenn. 572, 82 S. W. 185, 105 A. S. R. 972; State v. Bridgman, 49 Vt. 202, 24 Am. Rep. 124.

16. Lipham v. State, 125 Ga. 52, 53 S. E. 817, 114 A. S. R. 181, 5 Ann. Cas. 66; People v. Gibson, 255 Ill. 302, 99 N. E. 599, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 236; Com. V. Merriam, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 518, 25 Am. Dec. 420; State Note: 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 237.

Notes: 62 L.R.A. 335; 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 237.

20. Gross v. State, 61 Tex. Crim. 176, 135 S. W. 373, 33 L.R.A.(N.S.) 477.

are equally admissible with prior ones, for, so it is said, it is the repetition of the representations that is significant, and a subsequent instance reduces the probability of innocence equally as well as a prior one, and the criminality of prior or subsequent acts or representations does not affect their admissibility, if they are otherwise relevant.1

200. Relevancy of Proof to Offense Charged.-Whatever may be the object of evidence as to other offenses,-whether to prove motive, intent or guilty knowledge, or to show a general plan or scheme, or to prove identity, or to establish sexual intimacy and opportunity,proof of a distinct substantive crime is never admissible unless there is some logical connection between the two, from which it can be said the one tends to establish the other. Without this obvious connection, it is not only unjust to the prisoner to compel him to acquit himself of two offenses instead of one, but it is detrimental to justice to burden a trial with multiplied issues that tend to confuse and mislead the jury. The most guilty criminal may be innocent of other offenses charged against him, of which, if fairly tried, he might acquit himself. From the nature and prejudicial character of such evidence, it is obvious it should not be received, unless the mind plainly perceives that the commission of the one tends, by a visible connection, to prove the commission of the other by the prisoner. It also may be remarked that this being a matter of judgment, it is quite likely that courts will not always agree. and that some courts may see a logical connection where others may not. But however extreme the case may be, it will be found that the courts have always professed to put the admission of the testimony on the ground that there was some logical connection between the crime proposed to be proved other than the tendency to commit one crime as manifested by the tendency to commit the other.

201. Intent Otherwise Established.-Where from the nature of the offense under inquiry, proof of its commission as charged carries with it the evident implication of a criminal intent, evidence of the perpetration, or attempted perpetration, of other like offenses will not be admitted. Thus proof of intent to commit a murder

1. Note: 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 668. See also People v. Marrin, 205 N. Y. 275, 98 N. E. 474, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 754.

2. Dunn v. State, 2 Ark. 229, 35 Am. Dec. 54; Farris v. People, 129 Ill. 521, 21 N. E. 821, 16 A. S. R. 283, 4 L.R.A. 582; People v. Jennings, 252 Ill. 534, 96 N. E. 1077, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1206; Com. v. Snell, 189 Mass. 12, 75 N. E. 75, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1019; State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 24 Am. Rep. 69; Barnett v. State, 44 Tex.

Crim. 592, 73 S. W. 399, 100 A. S. R. 873.

Notes: 105 A. S. R. 981; 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 777; 8 Eng. Rul. Cas. 88.

3. People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 61 N. E. 286, 62 L.R.A. 193; Shaffner v. Com., 72 Pa. St. 60, 13 Am. Rep. 649.

4. State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 24 Am. Rep. 69.

5. Strong v. State, 86 Ind. 208, 44 Am. Rep. 292.

by poison, which conclusively appears from the attending circumstances, cannot be aided by evidence of another murder committed by similar means, but for a different cause. Several courts have substantially held that where the defendant admits in open court that the intent of the act charged against him is criminal, although denying participation in the act, evidence of other crimes for the purpose of proving intent is thereby rendered inadmissible, but this rule has also been denied; and it has been ruled that notwithstanding there may be other proof of intent in the case, rendering evidence of another crime unnecessary, the prosecution is not thereby debarred from making all the proof possible on the subject, and consequently, in such a case, may introduce evidence of another crime, it being said that while the law requires the best evidence attainable, it does not put any limit upon the amount of proof that may be adduced.10

8

Character or Reputation

202. In General.-At one time evidence of good character was held to be admissible on behalf of the defendant in capital cases only; 11 but at the present day the well-settled law is, that the defendant may introduce such evidence in all criminal cases where the object of the prosecution is to punish the offender for the crime.12 Evidence of good character is applicable both to the commission of the offense

Note: 105 A. S. R. 995. See also State v. Murphy, 17 N. D. 48, 115 N. W. 84, 16 Ann. Cas. 1133, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 609.

6. Note: 62 L.R.A. 216. 7. Note: 105 A. S. R. 998. 8. State v. Murphy, 17 N. D. 48, 115 N. W. 84, 16 Ann. Cas. 1133, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 609.

Note: 105 A. S. R. 998.

9. State v. Hyde, 234 Mo. 200, 136 S. W. 316, Ann. Cas. 1912D 191; State v. Murphy, 17 N. D. 48, 115 N. W. 84, 16 Ann. Cas. 1133, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.)

699.

Note: 62 L.R.A. 216.

10. State v. Murphy, 17 N. D. 48, 115 N. W. 84, 16 Ann. Cas. 1133, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 609.

11. Daniels v. State, 2 Penn. (Del.) 586, 48 Atl. 196, 54 L.R.A. 286; State v. Northrup, 48 Ia. 583, 30 Am. Rep. 408.

Note: Ann. Cas. 1913E 18.

12. Dupree v. State, 33 Ala. 380, 73 Am. Dec. 422; Gibson v. State, 89 Ala.

121, 8 So. 98, 18 A. S. R. 96; Scott v. State, 105 Ala. 57, 16 So. 925, 53 A. S. R. 100; State v. Goetz, 83 Conn. 437, 76 Atl. 1000, 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 458; Daniels v. State, 2 Penn. (Del.) 586, 48 Atl. 196, 54 L.R.A. 286; Wagner v. State, 107 Ind. 71, 7 N. E. 896, 57 Am. Rep. 79; Carr v. State, 135 Ind. 1, 34 N. E. 533, 41 A. S. R. 408 and note, 20 L.R.A. 863; State v. Northrup, 48 Ia. 583, 30 Am. Rep. 408; McDaniel v. State, 8 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 401, 47 Am. Dec. 93; Wesley v. State, 37 Miss. 327, 75 Am. Dec. 62; Sinclair v. State, 87 Miss. 330, 39 So. 522, 112 A. S. R. 446, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 553; State v. Beckner, 194 Mo. 281, 91 S. W. 892, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 535; Latimer v. State, 55 Neb. 609, 76 N. W. 207, 70 A. S. R. 403; State v. Wells, 1 N. J. L. 424, 1 Am. Dec. 211; People v. Sharp, 107 N. Y. 427, 14 N. E. 319, 1 A. S. R. 851; Com. v. Cleary, 135 Pa. St. 64, 19 Atl. 1017, 8 L.R.A. 301; Lann v. State, 25 Tex. App. 495, 8 S. W. 650, 8 A. S. R.

and the grade of the crime.18 Such proof strengthens the presump. tion of innocence; 14 indeed, by establishing good character a presumption is created that the accused did not commit the crime.15 Of course it must not be understood that good character is a defense, for it is not as a matter of law. 16 According to some authorities evidence of good character is admissible only in cases where the guilt of the party accused is doubtful; 17 but the correct doctrine is that proof of the good character of the accused is admissible in all criminal cases, not only where doubt exists on the other proof, but also to generate a doubt.18 Wherever a criminal intent is necessary to constitute the offense, evidence of the general character of the defendant is admissible in his behalf.1 19 Where the defense is insanity, evidence of uniform good character as a man and a citizen is proper for the jury to consider, as tending to show that he committed the act in an insane moment.2 20

203. Traits of Character That May Be Proved.-Indeed, where evidence touching the character of the party is admitted, it ought manifestly to bear reference to the nature of the charge against him.1 Where the trait of character in issue is one of honesty and fair dealing, evidence that the defendant is a peaceable, quiet, and law-abiding citizen, or that he is a man of sober and industrious habits, should not be admitted, because these questions do not bear upon the defendant's character for honesty. But evidence of the character of a

445; State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 11 So. 250, 38 A. S. R. 85; State v. 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Cas. 344. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Cas. 344.

Notes: 83 Am. Dec. 238; 11 Ann. Cas. 1189. See supra, par. 170; infra, par. 223 and see EVIDENCE.

13. Com. v. Cleary, 135 Pa. St. 64, 19 Atl. 1017, 8 L.R.A. 301.

Note: 20 L.R.A. 619.

14. Daniels v. State, 2 Penn. (Del.) 586, 48 Atl. 196, 54 L.R.A. 286; State v. Northrup, 48 Ia. 583, 30 Am. Rep. 408; State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Cas. 344. See supra, par. 166.

15. State v. Lee, 22 Minn. 407, 21 Am. Rep. 769; Latimer v. State, 55 Neb. 609, 76 N. W. 207, 70 A. S. R. 403; People v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N. Y. 408, 82 N. E. 718, 12 Ann. Cas. 745, 22 L.R.A.(N.S.) 650.

16. See supra, par. 97, as to good character as a defense.

17. McDaniel v. State, 8 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 401, 47 Am. Dec. 93.

Notes: 41 A. S. R. 410; Ann. Cas. 1913E 18.

Notes: 41 A. S. R. 410; 20 L.R.A. 613. See infra, par. 221 et seq.

19. Lann v. State, 25 Tex. App. 495, 8 S. W. 650, 8 A. S. R. 445; Lincecum v. State, 29 Tex. App. 328, 15 S. W. 818, 25 A. S. R. 727.

20. Hopps v. People, 31 Ill. 385, 83 Am. Dec. 231.

1. Hopps v. People, 31 Ill. 385, 83 Am. Dec. 231 (dictum); Carr v. State, 135 Ind. 1, 34 N. E. 533, 41 A. S. R. 408, 20 L.R.A. 863; McDaniel v. State, 8 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 401, 47 Am. Dec. 93; State v. Beckner, 194 Mo. 281, 91 S. W. 892, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 535; People v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N. Y. 408, 82 N. E. 718, 12 Ann. Cas. 745, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 650; Johnson State, 129 Wis. 146, 108 N. W. 55, 9 Ann. Cas. 923, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 809.

V.

Notes: 20 L.R.A. 612; 11 Ann. Cas. 1191.

2. State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 18. Springfield v. State, 96 Ala. 81, 52 S. E. 30, 6 Ann. Cas. 344.

defendant for peace and quietude is admissible on a charge of murder by poisoning on the ground that an assault is involved in every unlawful infliction of injury by poison, and that the character of an accused for peace is involved in the offense of assault or assault and battery.

204. Time to Which Proof of Character Must Relate.-Evidence of the defendant's character should be confined to a time not very remote from the date of the commission of the crime; but no certain limit, in point of duration, can be laid down for inquiries as to character. If a defendant introduces evidence as to good character, it is competent for the prosecution to show bad character, and in order that this right of the prosecution may be made effective, it is necessary that the evidence on the part of the defendant should be confined to a time not too remote from the date of the commission of the crime; for it would be impracticable for the prosecution in most cases to trace the life and habits of a defendant for more than a few years, and to allow the defendant to go back to boyhood and put in proof which it would be out of the power of the prosecution to contradict or in any manner rebut, however false it might be, would result in an advantage to the defendant which the rule in question never contemplated. Evidence of good character must be limited to the character of the defendant prior to the time of the discovery of the offense with which he is charged After the discovery that an offense has been committed, a previous good character may be destroyed, and a bad one created, by discussion of the circumstances connected with the offense, as well before as after the formal charge by legal proceeding is had. To permit the inquiry as to character to extend beyond the time of the discovery that the offense had been committed would be to allow evidence based entirely upon a single transaction, which is contrary to the whole theory upon which evidence of character is admitted in support of the presumption of innocence."

205. Mode of Proof; Personal Knowledge, Reputation; Specific Acts.-There is a difference of opinion as to the kind of evidence by which such character may be proved. There is some authority to the effect that a witness may testify as to the character of the defendant, basing his testimony on his personal knowledge of such character. According to the authorities supporting this rule the character of a person is that which he really is, rather than what he is reputed to

3. Carr v. State, 135 Ind. 1, 34 N. E. 533, 41 A. S. R. 408, 20 L.R.A. 863. 4. People v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N. Y. 408, 82 N. E. 718, 12 Ann. Cas. 745, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 650; State v. Barr, 11 Wash. 481, 39 Pac. 1080, 48 A. S. R. 890, 29 L.R.A. 154.

5. People v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N.

Y. 408, 82 N. E. 718, 12 Ann. Cas. 745, 22 L.R.A.(N.S.) 650.

6. State v. Barr, 11 Wash. 481, 39 Pac. 1080, 48 A. S. R. 890, 29 L.R.A. 154.

7. Allen v. Com., 134 Ky. 110, 119 S. W. 795, 20 Ann. Cas. 884. 8. Note: 12 Ann. Cas. 750.