at an end, and which form no part thereof.2 [§ 1122] J. Character and Reputation 3-1. Of Accused-a. In General. Within certain limits,5 accused is entitled to introduce evidence of his good character, although he is not examined as a witness in his own behalf, although the doctrine of self-defense does not arise, or although the evi C. S. C.-State v. Gardner, 83 S. 476, 65 SE 630. Tenn.-Dietzel v. State, 132 Tenn. 47, 177 SW 47. Tex.-Oliver V. State, (Cr.) 159 SW 235; Baum v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 638, 133 SW 271; Parnell v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 419, 98 SW 269; Freeman v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. 318, 81 SW 953; Baker v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. 392, 77 SW 618; Martin v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 279, 70 SW 973 (a statement made several hours after the crime); Borden v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. 648, 62 SW 1064; Ex p. Kennedy, (Cr.) 57 SW 648; Carlisle v. State, (Cr.) 56 SW 365 (a declaration as to the sanity of defendant). Vt. State v. Totten, 72 Vt. 73, 47 A 105. dence is direct and not merely circumstantial;" and where he does so, the prosecution may introduce evidence in rebuttal,10 and may cross-examine the witnesses who testify as to his good character;11 but, except where the character of defendant is an element of the crime charged,12 and except to the limited extent to which defendant's character may be Nebr.-Biester v. State, 65 Nebr. | S 665. 276, 91 NW 416. N. J.-State v. Wells, 1 N. J. L. N. M.-State v. McKnight, 21 N. N. Y.-Peo. v. Brasch, 193 N. Y. N. C.-State v. Morse, 171 N. C. Oh.-State v. Gardner, Tapp. 124. Pa.-Abernethey v. Com., 101 Pa. 2. Teague v. State, 144 Ala. 42, 40 S 312; Carroll v. State, 130 Ala. 99, 30 S 394 (after arrest of defendant); Phillips v. State, 11 Ala. A. 15, 65 S 444 (the next day); Peo. v. Ed-A. 548; Johnson v. State, 1 Tex. A. wards, 13 Cal. A. 551, 110 P 342; Brod v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 179 SW 1189; Peacock v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 432, 107 SW 346. 3. See also Evidence [16 Cyc 1263]. "Character" defined see Character 11 C. J. p 288. 4. Presumption as to character see supra § 1009. 5. See infra §§ 1123-1128. 122. Tex.-Matthews v. State, 32 Tex. W. Va.-State v. Donohoo, 22 W. And see De Weese v. Peo., 61 Colo. 6. U. S.-Searway v. U. S., 184 [a] "The reason for the rule (1) Fed. 716, 107 CCA 635; U. S. v. Ken-of the admission of testimony of neally, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,522, 5 Biss. the good character of a defendant is that it tends to lessen the probabilAla. Kilgore v. State, 74 Ala. 1;ity of his guilt." State v. Anslinger, Carson v. State, 50 Ala. 134; Dupree 171 Mo. 600, 608, 71 SW 1041. (2) v. State, 33 Ala. 380, 73 AmD 422; "Good character is admitted for two Rosenbaum v. State, 33 Ala. 354; purposes: First, to raise the preMitchell v. State, 14 Ala. A. 46, 70 sumption that there must be some S 991. mistake in the testimony of the state, Ark-Ware v. State, 91 Ark. 555, upon the ground that a person of 121 SW 927. good character would not have comCal.-Peo. v. Shepardson, 49 Cal.mitted the crime charged, and for 629. Del.-State v. Woods, 23 Del. 499, 77 A 490. D. C.-U. S. v. Neverson, 12 D. C. 152; U. S. v. Bowen, 10 D. C. 64. Ida. State v. Allen, 23 Ida. 772, 131 P 1112. Il-Mark v. Merz, 53 T11. A. 458. Ind. Hall v. State, 132 Ind. 317, 31 NE 536; McQueen v. State, 82 Ind. 72. Iowa.-State v. Donovan, 61 Iowa 278, 16 NW 130; State v. Lindley, 51 Iowa 343, 1 NW 484, 33 AmR 139; State v. Northrup, 48 Iowa 583, 30 AmR 408; State v. Kinley, 43 Iowa 294; State v. Turner, 19 Iowa 144. Kan.-State v. Pipes, 65 Kan. 543, 70 P 363; State v. Schleagel, 50 Kan. 325, 31 P 1105. Ky.-White v. Com., 80 Ky. 480. Mass.-Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295, 52 AmD 711. Mich.-Peo. v. Wilson, 170 Mich. 669, 137 NW 92, 41 LRANS 216; Peo. v. Mead, 50 Mich. 228, 15 NW 95; Hamilton v. Peo., 29 Mich. 195; Peo. v. Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9, 97 AmD 162. this purpose it may be sufficient to 7. State v. Green, 152 N. C. 835, 68 8. Gilbert v. State, 8 Okl. Cr. 543, 128 P 1100, 129 P 671. 9. Ind. Hall V. State, 132 Ind. 317, 31 NE 536. Iowa.-State v. Rodman, 62 Iowa 456, 17 NW 663. Kan.-State v. Turner, 83 Kan. 183, 109 P 983. Mich.-Peo. v. Mead, 50 Mich. 228, N. Y.-Stover v. Peo., 56 N. Y. 315; But see State v. Beebe, 17 Minn. 10. Ala.-Mitchell v. State, 14 Ala. Minn. State V. Beebe, 17 Minn. 241; State v. Dumphey, 4 Minn. 438. A. 46, 70 S 991. Miss.-Lewis v. State, 93 Miss. 697, 47 S 467. Mo.-State v. Anslinger, 171 Mo. 600, 71 SW 1041; State v. King, 78 Mo. 555; State v. Alexander, 66 Mo. 148; State v. O'Connor, 31 Mo. 389. Ark. Ware v. State, 91 Ark. 555, 121 SW 927; Weaver v. State, 83 Ark. 119, 102 SW 713. Cal.-Peo. v. Nunley, 142 Cal. 441, 76 P 45. Fla. Cook v. State, 46 Fla. 20, 35 Ga. Strickland v. State, 12 Ga. A. 640, 77 SE 1070; McKenzie v. State, 8 Ga. A. 124, 68 SE 622. Ill-Halloway v. Peo., 181 Ill. 544, 54 NE 1030. Iowa.-State v. Foster, 91 Iowa 164, 59 NW 8. 315. La.-State v. Farrer, 35 La. Ann. Mass.-Com. v. Mass. 152, 93 NE 253. Mich.-Peo. v. Coffman, 59 Mich. 1, 26 NW 207. Mo.-State V. Williams, 77 Mo. 310. N. Y.-Peo. v. McKane, 143 N. Y. 455, 38 NE 950. N. C.-State v. Cloninger, 149 N. C. 567, 63 SE 154. Oh.-Griffin v. State, 14 Oh. St. 55. Or.-State v. Selby, 73 Or. 378, 144 P_657. Tenn. Keith v. State, 127 Tenn. 40, 152 SW 1029. Tex.-Turner v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. 649, 163 SW 705; Holsey v. State, 24 Tex. A. 35, 5 SW 523. And see Edmunds v. State, (Cr.) 63 SW 871 (where, in holding that it was not error to receive evidence that defendant had borne different names in different localities, the court said: "If it be conceded that it was an attempt to place defendant's character in evidence, it ought to have been shown that there was no evidence on the part of defendant putting his character in issue. It does not occur to us that this testimony was plac ing defendant's character before the jury. What name a defendant bears is a fact, and, if he has borne different names in different localities, it occurs to us this can be shown, just as the occupation of a defendant can be shown, and is not evidence of one's character"). Eng. Reg. v. Rowton, 10 Cox C. C. 25; Reg. v. Hughes, 1 Cox C. C. 44. [a] "The object of permitting the prosecution to introduce such evidence is not for the purpose of showing the bad character of the defendant; but it is for the purpose of refuting his claim that he has a good character, and thus to prevent the defendant from imposing a false character upon the jury." Ware v. State, 91 Ark. 555, 559, 121 SW 927. [b] Good character proved by state's witness.-The rule permitting the prosecution to rebut evidence adduced to prove good character applies when a state's witness was used to prove good character. McKenzie v. State, 8 Ga. A. 124, 68 SE 622. 11. Ala.-Barnett V. State, 165 Ala. 59, 51 S 299; Thompson v. State, 100 Ala. 70, 14 S 878. Ind. McDonel V. State, 90 Ind 320; Beauchamp v. State, 6 Blackf 299. La.-State v. West, 43 La. Ann. 1006, 10 S 364. Mich.-Peo. v. Mills, 94 Mich. 630. 54 NW 488. Nebr.-McCormick V. State, 66 Nebr. 337, 92 NW 606. N. C.-State v. Parks, 109 N. C. 813, 13 SE 939. 44. Eng.-Reg. v. Hughes, 1 Cox C. C Cross-examination as to particu lar acts see infra § 1125. 12. Edmons v. State, 9 Okl. Cr 603, 132 P 923 [foll Beck v. State. Okl. Cr. 620, 132 P 929] (pandering). And see State v. Averill, 85 Vt. 113 81 A 461, AnnCas1914B 1005 (hold attacked for purposes of impeachment when he takes the stand in his own behalf,13 the state is not entitled to introduce evidence of the bad character or reputation of accused unless he has clearly and expressly 14 put his character in issue by introduring evidence of good character.15 Evidence of good character has been confined by a few cases to crimes which involve some degree of moral turpitude, 16 or a guilty knowledge or criminal intent,17 while other courts hold that a defendant on trial for a crime of any grade is entitled to offer evidence of his good character.18 [1123] b. Extent of Inquiry-(1) Time. Evidence of character must be confined to proof of character or reputation at or prior to the commission of the offense; it must not be allowed to cover character after the commission of the offense or what was said after the offense as to accused's character either before or after the offense.19 This is true both as to evidence of good character offered by accused 20 and as to evidence of bad character offered by the state in rebuttal.21 The contrary, however, has been held as to a bad reputation acquired subsequent to the crime.22 The evidence should be confined to a time not too remote from the date of the commission of the crime.23 ing that the rule that the prosecutor | 38 NE 950; Peo. v. Greenwall, 108 N. cannot impeach the character of ac- Y. 296, 15 NE 404, 2 AmSR 415, 7 cused until accused has adduced evi- N. Y. Cr. 299, 28 NYWkly Dig 276; dence to support it does not apply to 115 N. Y. 522, 22 NE 180, 7 N. Y. Cr. evidence otherwise having a legiti-309; Peo. v. Sharp, 107 N. Y. 427, 14 mate bearing on the guilt of accused). 13. See Witnesses [40 Cyc 2594]. 14. Cal.-Peo. v. Fair, 43 Cal. 137. Ga-Bowens v. State, 106 Ga. 760, 32 SE 666. Miss.-Webb V. State, 111 Miss. 419, 71 S 738. Tex-Felsenthal v. State, 30 Tex. A. 675, 18 SW 644. Wash.-State v. Shaw, 75 Wash. 326, 135 P 20. 15. U. S.-U. S. v. Jourdine, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,499, 4 Cranch C. C. 338: U. S. v. Kenneally, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,522, 5 Biss. 122; U. S. v. Warner, 28 F. Cas. No. 16,642, 4 Cranch C. C. 342. Ala-Forman v. State, 190 Ala. 22 67 S 583; Cox v. State, 162 Ala. 66, 50 S 398; Harrison v. State, 37 Ala. 154. Ark.-Shuffield v. State, 120 Ark. 458, 179 SW 650; Younger v. State, 100 Ark. 321, 140 SW 139; Ware v. State, 91 Ark. 555, 121 SW 927. Cal.-Peo. v. Fair, 43 Cal. 137. To same effect Peo. v. Mohr, 157 Cal. 732, 109 P 476. Del-State v. Lodge, 14 Del. 542, 33 A 312. Fla. Mann v. State, 22 Fla. 600. Ga.-Pound v. State, 43 Ga. 88: Ward v. State, 14 Ga. A. 110, 80 SE 295; Cooper v. State, 13 Ga. A. 697, 79 SE 908. Ind.-Fletcher v. State, 49 Ind. 124, 19 AmR 673. Iowa.-State V. Thompson, 127 Iowa 440, 103 NW 377; State V. Rainsbarger, 71 Iowa 746, 31 NW 865. Kan.-State v. Thurtell, 29 Kan. 148. Ky-Bennett v. Com., 171 Ky. 63, 186 SW 933; Hansford v. Com., 170 Ky. 700, 186 SW 498; Romes v. Com., 164 Ky. 334, 175 SW 669; Combs v. Com., 160 Ky. 386, 169 SW 879; Newman v. Com., 88 SW 1089, 28 KyL 81; Calhoon v. Com., 64 SW 965, 23 KyL 1188; Williams v. Com., 50 SW 240, 20 KyL 1850; Petty v. Com., 15 SW 1059, 12 KyL 919; Young v. Com., 6 Bush 312; Downey v. Com., 7 KyL 676, 13 Ky. Op. 999. Miss.-Dowling. v. State, 13 Miss. 664; Overstreet v. State, 4 Miss. 328. Mo.-State v. Wellman, 253 Mo. 302, 161 SW 795; State v. Conway, 241 Mo. 271, 145 SW 441; State v. Richardson, 194 Mo. 326, 92 SW 649; State v. Shipley, 171 Mo. 544, 71 SW 1039, 174 Mo. 512, 74 SW 612. Mont.-State v. Jones, 51 Mont. 390. 153 P 282. Nebr.-Carter v. State, 36 Nebr. 481, 54 NW 853. N. H.-State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 24 AmR 69. N. Y.-Peo. v. Lingley, 207 N. Y. 396, 101 NE 170, 46 LRANS 342, Ann Cas1913D 403 [rearg den 208 N. Y. 597 mem, 102 NE 1109 mem]; Peo. V. Hinksman, 192 N. Y. 421, 85 NE 676; Peo. v. Pekarz., 185 N. Y. 470, 78 NE 294; Peo. v. Fitzgerald, 156 N. Y. 253, 50 NE 846 [rev 20 App. Div. 139, 46 NYS 1020, 12 N. Y. Cr. 524]; Peo. v. McKane. 143 N. Y. 455, NE 319, 1 AmSR 851, 5 N. Y. Cr. 569, 27 NYWkly Dig 373 [rev 45 Hun 460]; Peo. v. Springer, 137 App. Div. 304, 122 NYS 194; Peo. v. Benedict, 21 NYS 58; Peo. v. White, 14 Wend Okl.-Upton v. State, (Cr.) 160 P 1134; Cantrell v. State, (Cr.) 159 P 1092; Sims v. State, 11 Okl. Cr. 382, 146 P 914; Kirk v. State, 11 Okl. Cr. 203, 145 P 307; Wilkerson v. State, 9 Okl. Cr. 662, 132 P 1120; Porter v. State, 8 Okl. Cr. 64, 126 P 699. Or.-State v. Selby, 73 Or. 378, 144 P 657; State v. Lee, 46 Or. 40, 79 P 577. R. I-State v. Ellwood, 17 R. I. 763, 24 A 782. Tex.-Boyd v. State, 78 Tex. Cr. 28, 180 SW 230; Haufman v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. 454, 165 SW 193; Hinton v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. 408, 144 SW 617; Maxwell v. State, (Cr.) 78 SW 516; Nix v. State, (Cr.) 74 SW 764; Johnson v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. 618, 62 SW 756; Bell v. State, (Cr.) 56 SW 913; Tooney v. State, 8 Tex. A. 452; Antle v. State, 6 Tex. A. 202. Wash.-State v. Shaw, 75 Wash. 326, 332, 135 P 20 [cit Cyc]: State v. Craddick, 61 Wash. 425, 112 P 491. W. Va.-State v. Miller, 75 W. Va. 591, 84 SE 383; State v. Grove, 61 W. Va. 697, 57 SE 296. Wis.-Dungan v. State, 135 Wis. 151, 115 NW 350. 328. Iowa 294. Ky. White v. Com., 80 Ky. 480. La-State v. Murray, 139 La. 280, 71 S 510. N. Y.-Peo. v. Sansa, 169 App. Div. 145, 154 NYS 876. Tenn.-Moore v. State, 96 Tenn. 209, 33 SW 1046. Tex.-Beesing v. State, 78 Tex. Cr. 76, 180 SW 256; Hill v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. 415, 35 SW 660; Graham v. State, 29 Tex. A. 31, 13 SW 1013. 21. Ala. Foreman v. State, 190 Ala. 22, 67 S 583, 585; Griffith v. State, 90 Ala. 583, 8 S 812; Brown v. State, 46 Ala. 175; Mitchell v. State, 14 Ala. A. 46, 70 S 991; Robinson v. State, 5 Ala. A. 45, 59 S 321: Carter v. State, 4 Ala. A. 72, 59 S 222. Cal.-Peo. v. Fong Ching, 78 Cal. 169, 20 P 396; Peo. v. McSweeney, 4 Cal. Unrep. Cas. 924, 38 P 743. Del.-State v. Naylor, 28 Del. 99, 90 A 880. Iowa.-State 294. v. Kinley, 43 Iowa Ky.-Combs v. Com., 160 Ky. 386, 169 SW 879, 882; White v. Com., 80 Ky. 480, 4 KyL 373. Mich.-Peo. v. Huff, 173 Mich. 620, 139 NW 1033. Mo.-State v. Wertz, 191 Mo. 569, 90 SW 838. N. J.-State v. Sprague, 64 N. J. L. 419, 45 A 788. N. C.-State v. Johnson, 60 N. C. 151. Tenn.-Lea v. State, 94 Tenn. 495, 29 SW 900. Tex.-Caruth v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. 150, 177 SW 973. Vt.-State v. Viscome, 78 Vt. 485, 63 A 877. Va.-Carter v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. (4 Va.) 169. But compare State v. King, 9 S. D. 628, 70 NW 1046 (holding that, while it is improper to introduce evidence showing the talk of people caused by the charge on which ac error to allow questions as to defendant's reputation up to the time that he was accused). [a] "This doctrine is founded upon the wise policy of avoiding the un-cused is being tried, yet it is not fair prejudice and unjust condemnation which such evidence might induce in the minds of the jury. If such testimony should be admitted, the defendant might be overwhelmed by prejudice instead of being tried upon evidence affirmatively showing his guilt of the specific offense with which he is charged." Ware v. State, 91 Ark. 555, 559, 121 SW 927. [b] To permit this is reversible error.-Pound v. State. 43 Ga. 88. And see cases supra this note. 16. Com. v. Nagle, 157 Mass. 554, 32 NE 861. 17. Beesing v. State, 78 Tex. Cr. 76, 180 SW 256; Jones v. State, 10 Tex. A. 552. 18. Ware v. State, 91 Ark. 555, 121 SW 927. Weight of evidence of good character as affected by grade of crime see infra § 1129. 19. See cases infra this section. 20. Ala. Smith v. State, 72 S 316; White v. State, 111 Ala. 92, 21 S 330; Brown v. State, 46 Ala. 175. Cal.-Peo. v. McSweeney, Unrep. Cas. 924, 38 P 743. 4 Cal. Del.-State v. Naylor, 28 Del. 99, 90 A 880. Iowa.-State v. Rowell, 172 Iowa, 208, 154 NW 488; State v. Kinley, 43 "We deem it wise to direct attention to the fact that in all criminal cases, whenever the character of the defendant becomes the subject of evidence on the part of the state or of the defendant, the evidence as to such character must be limited to the character which the defendant bore in his community prior to the time of the commission of the offense for which he is being tried. tion in all such cases is: the general character of the defendant up to the time of the commission of the alleged offense? and not, what was the general character of the defendant on the day of the trial?" Forman v. State, 190 Ala. 22, 27, 67 S 583, 585. The quesWhat was Time to which injury may extend where evidence offered for purpose of impeachment see Witnesses [40 Cyc 2597]. 22. Com. V. Sacket, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 394. 23. Taylor v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. 376, 179 SW 113 (reports thirty years before too remote); State v. Barr, 11 Wash. 481, 39 P 1080, 48 AmSR 890, 29 LRA 154 (boyhood reputation. too ibility as a witness is attacked.28 [§ 1125] (3) General Reputation or Particular Acts. Although in most,29 but not all,30 jurisdictions, a character witness may on cross-examination be asked whether he has not heard that defendant had committed or been accused of particular acts of misconduct, on direct examination evidence of particular and specific acts of good or bad conduct is not admissible to prove defendant's good or bad character, but the evidence must be limited to proof of general character or reputation,31 not among N. Y. 408, 82 NE 718, 22 LRANS | 831, 54 S 45 [cit Cyc]. 650, 12 AnnCas 745 [aff 118 App. Div. 511, 103 NYS 249]. [§ 1124] (2) Trait Involved. The evidence of good character offered by accused may and must relate particularly to that trait of character which is involved in the crime charged, so that the proof of good character will render it unlikely that he would be guilty of that particular crime.24 The same is true of evidence in rebuttal of evidence of good character.25 Under this rule, evidence of defendant's reputation for truth and veracity is not admissible,20 except where the trait of truthfulness is involved in the charge,27 or where his credremote). And see State v. Quinlan, 86 N. J. L. 120, 91 A 111 (holding that it is within the discretion of the court whether to permit a witness to testify as to accused's good reputation three or four years prior to the finding of the indictment, where there is no offer by accused to show a continuation of such good reputation). Pa.-Com. V. Colandro, 231 Pa. 343, 80 A 571, 576 [cit Cyc]; Com. v. LeFlem, 33 Pa. Co. 460; Com. v. Irwin, 1 PaLJR 344, 2 PaLJ 329; Com. v. Bloes, 1 Wilcox 39. Tex.-Stevens v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 565, 159 SW 505; Lincecum v. State, 24. U. S.-Edgington v. U. S., 164 29 Tex. A. 328, 15 SW 818, 25 AmSR U. S. 361, 17 SCt 72, 41 L. ed. 467; 727; Johnson v. State, 17 Tex. A. 515. U. S. v. Wilson, 176 Fed. 806; Har- But see Bishop v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. per v. U. S., 170 Fed. 385, 96 CCA 1, 160 SW 705, AnnCas1916E 379 555 [rev 7 Ind. T. 437, 104 SW 673]. (holding that, wherever criminal inAla.-Balkum V. State, 115 Ala. tent is an issue in the case, evi117, 22 S 532, 67 AmSR 19; Hays v. dence of defendant's general repuState, 110 Ala. 60, 20 S 322; Kilgore tation as a law-abiding citizen is adv. State, 74 Ala. 1; Mitchell v. State, missible, and that in a prosecution 14 Ala. A. 46, 70 S 991. To same for seduction the inquiry is not limeffect Cauley v. State, 92 Ala. 71, 9 Sited to defendant's reputation for 456. And see Butler v. State, 91 Ala. morality and chastity). 87, 9 S 191 (holding, without discussion, that it is not competent to prove the general character of defendant for profanity). Ariz.-U. S. v. Chung Sing, 4 Ariz. 217, 36 P 205. Ark. Kee v. State, 28 Ark. 155. Cal.-Peo. v. Bezy, 67 Cal. 223, 7 P 643; Peo. v. Ashe, 44 Cal. 288; Peo. v. Fair, 43 Cal. 137; Peo. v. Stewart, 28 Cal. 395, Peo. v. Josephs, 7 Cal. 129. Del.-State v. Conlan, 19 Del. 218, 50 A 95. D. C.-Masters v. U. S., 42 App. 350, AnnCas1916A 1243. Ga.-Arnold v. State, 131 Ga. 494, 62 SE 806; Dunn v. State, 16 Ga. A. 9, 84 SE 488. Ind. Carr v. State, 135 Ind. 1, 34 NE 533, 41 AmSR 408, 20 LRA 863: Walker y. State, 102 Ind. 502, 1 NE 856; State v. Bloom, 68 Ind. 54, 34 AmR 247; Baehner v. State, 25 Ind. A. 597, 58 NE 741. | Wash.-State V. Schuman, 89 Wash. 9, 153 P 1084; State v. Surry, 23 Wash. 655, 63 P 557. W. Va.-State v. Moyer, 58 W. Va. 146, 52 SE 30, 6 AnnCas 344; State v. Madison, 49 W. Va. 96, 38 SE 492. [a] In a prosecution for larceny, the evidence of character should be confined to defendant's reputation for honesty and integrity. Butler v. State, 91 Ala. 87, 9 S 191; State v. Conlan, 19 Del. 218, 50 A 95; State v. Bloom, 68 Ind. 54, 34 AmR 247. [b] Incidental and remote traits of character are not involved. Peo. v. Burke, 18 Cal. A. 72, 122 P 435. 25. Dunn v. State, 16 Ga. A. 9, 84 SE 488. 26. Ala-Hays v. State, 110 Ala. 60, 20 S 322. Il-Peo. v. Smith, 185 Ill. A. 286. La. State v. Banks, 138 La. 1090, 71 S 194. Mo.-State v. Fogg, 206 Mo. 696, 105 SW 618. N. M. Terr. v. Pierce, 16 N. M. 10, 113 P 591. 68 Tex. Cr. 382, 153 SW 316; Pettis v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. 221, 150 SW 790. Iowa.-State v. Dexter, 115 Iowa 678, 87 NW 417. And see State v. Shultz, 158 NW 539 (where the Tex.-Matthews v. State, (Cr.) 189 court said: "If we assume a rule SW 491; Jones v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. which limits evidence of general 205, 167 SW 1110; Wisnoski v. State, reputation to characteristics involved in the charge being tried, even then this testimony should have been received. It is manifest that the general moral character of a man has characteristic relation to the question of whether he is, in reason, likely to be guilty of incest"). La.-State v. Banks, 138 La. 1090, 71 S 194 [overr State v. Parker, 7 La Ann. 83 and cit Cyc]; State v. Griggsby, 117 La. 1046, 1051, 42 S 497 [cit Cyc]; State v. Bessa, 115 La. 259, 261, 38 S 985 [cit Cyc]. Mass.-Com. v. Nagle, 157 Mass. 554, 32 NE 861; Com. v. Worcester, Thach. Cr. 100. Miss. Jefferson v. State, 102 Miss. 174, 59 S 8; Westbrooks v. State, 76 Miss. 710, 25 S 491. Mo.-State v. Anslinger, 171 Mo. 600, 71 SW 1041; State v. King, 78 Mo. 555; State v. Dalton, 27 Mo. 13; State v. Bradford, 79 Mo. A. 346. Nebr.-Basye V. State, 45 Nebr. 261, 63 NW 811. Nev.-State v. Pearce, 15 Nev. 188. N. J.-State v. Sprague, 64 N. J. L. 419, 45 A 788; State v. Snover, 63 N. J. L. 382, 43 A 1059. N. M.-State v. McKnight, 21 N. M. 14, 153 P 76. N. Y.-Peo. v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 Wash.-State V. Schuman, 89 Wash. 9, 153 P 1084. Wis.-Johnson V. State, 129 Wis. 146, 108 NW 55, 5 LRANS 809, 9 AnnCas 923. 27. Peo. v. Albers, 137 Mich. 678, 100 NW 908. 28. See Witnesses [40 Cyc 2596, 2601, 2614, 2644]. 29. Ala.-Barnett V. State, 165 Ala. 59, 51 S 299; Carson v. State, 128 Ala. 58, 29 S 608; White v. State, 111 Ala. 92, 21 S 330; Goodwin v. State, 102 Ala. 87, 15 S 571; Thompson v. State, 100 Ala. 70, 14 S 878; Hawes v. State, 88 Ala. 37, 7 S 302; Ingram v. State, 67 Ala. 67: Lewis v. State, 13 Ala. A. 31, 68 S 792 [certiorari den 69 S 1018]. Cal-Peo. v. Burke, 18 Cal. A. 72, 122 P 435. Mo.-State v. Wertz, 191 Mo. 569, 90 SW 838; State v. Parker, 172 Mo. 191, 72 SW 650; State v. Willis, 154 Mo. A. 605, 136 SW 25. N. Y.-Peo. v. Elliott, 163 N. Y. 11, 57 NE 103 [rev 43 App. Div. 621 mem, 60 NYS 1145 mem]; Peo. v. Watson, 3 Silv. Sup. 560, 7 NYS 532. Pa.-Com. V. McClellan, 42 Pa Super. 504. S. C.-State v. Dill, 48 S. C. 249, 26 SE 567. Eng. Reg. v. Wood, 5 Jur. 225. 30. Aiken v. Peo., 183 III. 215, 55 NE 695; Jones v. State, 118 Ind. 39. 20 NE 634; Harris v. Com., 74 SW 1044, 25 KyL 297 (holding, however, that defendant was not prejudiced by the answer to the question). 31. Ala.-Jackson v. State, 41 S 178; Moulton v. State, 88 Ala. 116. 6 S 758, 6 LRA 301; Walker v. State, 91 Ala. 76, 9 S 87; Hussey v. State, 87 Ala. 121, 6 S 420; Davenport v. State, 85 Ala. 336, 5 S 152; Steele v. State, 83 Ala. 20, 3 S 547; Jones v. State, 76 Ala. 8; Franklin v. State, 29 Ala. 14; Stout v. State, (A.) 72 S 762 [certiorari den 73 S 1002]; James v. State, 14 Ala. A. 652, 72 S 299; Sexton v. State, 13 Ala. A. 84, 69 S 341: Maxwell v. State, 11 Ala. A. 53, 65 S 732. Ark. Ware v. State, 91 Ark. 555, 121 SW 927. Cal.-Peo. v. Lee Dick Lung, 129 Cal. 491, 62 P 71: Peo. v. Bishop, 81 Cal. 113, 22 P 477; Peo. v. Bezy, 67 Cal. 223, 7 P 643. Del-State v. Briscoe, 19 Del. 7. 50 A 271. Fla. Nelson v. State, 32 Fla. 244, 13 S 361; Reddick v. State, 25 Fla. 112, 433, 5 S 704. Ill. Hirschman v. Peo., 101 III. 568; Gifford v. Peo., 87 11. 210; McCarty v. Peo., 51 Ill. 231, 99 AmD 542. Ind. Stalcup v. State, 146 Ind. 270, 45 NE 334; Stitz v. State, 104 Ind. 359, 4 NE 145; Engleman v. State, 2 Ind. 91, 52 AmD 494. Iowa.-State v. Dexter, 115 Iowa 678, 87 NW 417; State v. Bysong, 112 Iowa 419, 84 NW 505; State v. Sterrett, 71 Iowa 386, 32 NW 387. Kan.-State v. Yeater, 95 Kan. 247, 147 P 1114; State v. Frederickson, 81 Kan. 854, 106 P 1061. Ky.-White v. Com., 4 KyL 373. La.-State v. Donelon, 45 La. Ann. 744, 12 S 922. Mass.-Com. v. O'Brien, 119 Mass. 342, 20 AmR 325; Rex v. Doaks, Quincy 90. Mich.-Peo. v. Bollman, 178 Mich. 159, 144 NW 537; Peo. v. Huff, 173 Mich. 620, 139 NW 1033; Peo. v. Albers, 137 Mich. 678, 100 NW 908, Miss. Neal v. State, 101 Miss. 122, 57 S 419; Kearney v. State, 68 Miss. 233, 8 S 292. Mo.-State v. Teeter, 239 Mo. 475, 144 SW 445; State v. Phillips, 233 Mo. 299, 135 SW 4; State v. McDonough, 232 Mo. 219, 134 SW 545; State v. Lockett, 168 Mo. 480, 68 SW 563: State v. Welsor, 117 Mo. 570, 21 SW 443; State v. Parker, 96 Mo. 382, 9 SW 728. Mont-State v. Brooks, 23 Mont. 146, 57 P 1038. Nebr.-Basye v. State, 45 Nebr. 261, 63 NW 811; Patterson v. State, 41 Nebr. 538, 59 NW 917; Olive V. the members of a particular class of people,32 but in the community where accused has lived or has been known,33 or where he was in the habit of dealing;34 but evidence of his reputation elsewhere is relevant,35 especially in rebuttal,36 provided it is not too remote.37 Except in some jurisdictions,38 witnesses to prove character cannot testify as to what they know of defendant, or as to his disposition, nor give their opinion as to his character or disposition, from their personal observation or experience; their testimony must be limited to general reputation.39 Even where testimony as to particular acts of misconduct is permissible on cross-examination, the questions and answers must be confined to what the witness has heard, and must not extend to his personal knowledge; but the rule is otherwise in a few jurisdictions.42 There is authority for the proposition that, where accused 40 State, 11 Nebr. 1, 7 NW 444. N. H.-State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 24 AmR 69. N. J.-Bullock v. State, 65 N. J. L. 557, 47 A 62, 86 AmSR 668. N. Y.-Peo. v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N. Y. 408, 82 NE 718, 22 LRANS 650, 12 AnnCas 745 [aff 118 App. Div. 511, 103 NYS 249]; Peo. v. Gibson, 4 NYS 170, 6 N. Y. Cr. 390. And see Peo. v. Christy, 65 Hun 349, 20 NYS 278, 8 N. Y. Cr. 480 (holding that it is not permissible for the state to attack the character of defendant by proving that he kept a place of bad character). N. C.-State v. Castle, 133 N. C. 769, 46 SE 1; State v. Laxton, 76 N. C. 216. Or.-State v. Garrand, 5 Or. 156. Pa-Snyder v. Com., 85 Pa. 519; Com. v. Brown, 23 Pa. Super. 470; Com. v. Gibbons, 3 Pa. Super. 408. Porto Rico.-Peo. v. Bonhome, 22 Porto Rico 372. Tenn-Keith v. State, 127 Tenn. 40, 152 SW 1029. Tex.-Leonard v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. - 187, 109 SW 149; Howard v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. 494, 36 SW 475, 66 AmSR 812; Williford v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. 414, 37 SW 761; Holsey v. State, 24 Tex. A. 35, 5 SW 523. Utah.-State v. Anselmo, 46 Utah 137, 148 P 1071. Wash-State v. Coates, 22 Wash. 601, 614, 61 P 726. Wis-Robinson v. State, 143 Wis. 205, 126 NW 750; Carthaus v. State, 78 Wis. 560, 47 NW 629. 25. Eng.-Reg. v. Rowton, 10 Cox C. C. Ont.-Reg. v. Triganzie, 15 Ont. 294. 20, 3 S 547; Sullivan v. State, 66 Ala. | 48. Ark. Williams v. State, 66 Ark. 264, 50 SW 517. Cal.-Peo. v. Murphy, 146 Cal. 502, 506, 80 P 709; Peo. v. Gordan, 103 Cal. 568, 37 P 534; Peo. v. Klempke, 19 Cal. A. 672, 127 P 653. Del.-State v. Briscoe, 19 Del. 7, 50 A 271. D. C.-Sacrini v. U. S., 38 App. 371; Lomax v. U. S., 37 App. 414. Fla.-Nelson v. State, 32 Fla. 244, 13 S 361. Ga. Keener v. State, 18 Ga. 194, 63 AmD 269. Ill. Hirschman V. Peo., 101 I11. Iowa.-State v. Dexter, 115 Iowa 678, 87 NW 417; State v. Ward, 73 Iowa 532, 35 NW 617. 568. La.-State v. Donelon, 45 La. Ann. 744, 12 S 922. Mich.-Peo. V. Albers, 137 Mich. 678, 100 NW 908. Mo.-State v. Boyd, 178 Mo. 2, 76 SW 979. Nebr.-Younger v. State, 80 Nebr. 201, 114 NW 170; Berneker v. State, 40 Nebr. 810, 59 NW 372. Nev.-State v. Huber, 38 Nev. 253, 148 P 562. N. Y.-Peo. v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N. Y. 408, 82 NE 718, 22 LRANS 650, 12 AnnCas 745 [aff 118 App. Div.. 511, 103 NYS 249]; Sawyer v. Peo., 91 N. Y. 667, 1 N. Y. Cr. 249; Peo. v. Seldner, 62 App. Div. 357, 71 NYS 35. N. D.-State v. Thoemke, 11 N. D. 386, 92 NW 480. Oh.-Searles v. State, 6 Oh. Cir. Ct. 331, 3 Oh. Cir. Dec. 478. A 129. Tex.-Gay v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 242, 49 SW 612; Browder v. State, But see Montgomery v. State, 11 30 Tex. A. 614, 18 SW 197; Holsey Okl. Cr. 415, 142 P 1048, 147 P 1054 v. State, 24 Tex. A. 35, 5 SW 523. (holding that, where accused has Vt.-State v. Emery, 59 Vt. 84, 7 placed his good reputation as a lawabiding citizen in issue, the facts that he had paid a special internal revenue tax and had secured a retail liquor dealer's license are admissible for the purpose of meeting the issue). 34. State v. Henderson, 29 W. Va. 147, 1 SE 225. 35. State V. Espinozei, 20 Nev. 209, 19 P 677; Fry v. State, 96 Tenn. 467, 35 SW 883. 36. Peo. v. Nunley, 142 Cal. 441, 76 P 45; State v. Foster, 91 Iowa 164, 59 NW 8. [a] Position of trust.-Evidence that accused occupied, or was employed in, a position of trust is not admissible to prove good character. James v. State, 14 Ala. A. 652, 72 S 299; Howard v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. 494, 36 SW 475, 66 AmSR 812. 32. Watson v. State, 181 Ala. 53, 61 S 334 ("law-abiding people"); Sacrini v. U. S., 38 App. (D. C.) 371 (other workmen engaged in same work); State v. Brady, 71 N. J. L. 360, 59 A 6 (fellow workmen); Thurman v. State, 4 Oh. Cir. Ct. 141, 2 Oh. Cir. Dec. 466. And see State V. Gates, 130 Mo. 351, 32 SW 971 (hold- 39. Ala. Andrews V. State, 159 ing that investigations of defendant's reputation, by a lodge, could not have the shadow of a tendency toward determining what his general reputation was). 37. Lomax v. U. S., 37 App. (D. C.) 414 (a place one hundred and fifty miles distant, which accused visited annually, but where she had not lived for fourteen years); State v. Shouse, 188 Mo. 473, 87 SW 480; Griffin v. State, 14 Oh. St. 55 (reputation in a neighborhood where accused had never lived and where he was not generally known). 33. Ala. Steele v. State, 83 Ala. 38. State v. Sterrett, 68 Iowa 76, 25 NW 936; State v. Lee, 22 Minn. 407, 21 AmR 769. Ala. 14, 48 S 858. Cal.-Peo. v. Ah Lee Doon, 97 Cal. 171, 31 P 933. Del.-State v. Jones, 20 Del. 109, 53 A 858. Ill.-Hirschman v. Peo., 101 I11. 568. Mich.-Peo. v. Albers, 137 Mich. 678, 100 NW 908. Nebr.-Berneker v. State, 40 Nebr. 810, 59 NW 372. Nev.-State v. Huber, 38 Nev. 253, 148 P 562. N. Y.-Peo. v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N. Y. 408, 82 NE 718, 22 LRANS 650, 12 AnnCas 745 [aff 118 App. Div. 511, 103 NYS 249]; Sawyer v. Peo., 91 N. Y. 667, 1 N. Y. Cr. 249; Sindram v. Peo., 88 N. Y. 196. Vt.-State v. Emery, 59 Vt. 84, 7 A 129. Eng.-Reg. v. Rowton, 10 Cox C. C. 25. And see State v. Laird, 79 Kan. 681, 100 P 637 (holding that evidence by the mother of an accused minor that she was a widow, that he was a good boy to work, and gave his wages to her, and that he did not attempt to avoid arrest, was immaterial and properly excluded). same effect State v. Green, 229 Mo. 642, 129 SW 700. To 40. See supra note 29. 41. Ala.-Carson v. State, 128 Ala. 58, 29 S 608; White v. State, 111 Ala. 92, 21 S 330; Moulton v. State, 88 Ala. 116, 6 S 758, 6 LRA 301; Lewis v. State, 13 Ala. A. 31, 68 S 792 [certiorari den 69 S 1018]. Iowa.-State v. McGee, 81 Iowa 17, 46 NW 764; Gordon v. State, 3 Iowa 410. Kan.-State v. Yeater, 95 Kan. 247, 147 P 1114. La.-State v. Green, 127 La. 830, 831, 54 S 45 [cit Cyc]; State v. Donelon, 45 La. Ann. 744, 12 S 922. N. J.-State v. Sprague, 64 N. J. L. 419, 45 A 788. Pa.-Com. v. Colandro, 231 Pa. 343, 355, 80 A 571 [quot Cyc]. 42. State v. Jerome, 33 Conn. 265; Peo. v. Mills, 94 Mich. 630, 54 NW 488. 43. King v. U. S., 112 Fed. 988, 50 CCA 647. 44. Caldwell v. State, 160 Ala. 96, 49 S 679. 45. Moulton v. State, 88 Ala. 116, 6 S 758, 6 LRA 301; State v. Green, 127 La. 830, 54 S 45. 46. Haley v. State, 63 Ala. 83. 47. Peo. v. Eckman, 72 Cal. 582, 14 P 359: Taylor v. State, 120 Ga. 857, 48 SE 361; Peo. v. Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9, 97 AmD 162; Burns v. State, 23 Tex. A. 641, 5 SW 140. 48. State v. Barrett, 151 N. C. 665, 65 SE 894. Conviction of crime as affecting credibility of witness see Witnesses [40 Cyc 2607, 2622]. Proof of other offenses generally see infra §§ 1132-1201. 49. Kelley v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 185 SW 570. 50. Smith v. State, 11 Ga. A. 89, 74 SE 711; McKenzie v. State, 8 Ga. A. 124, 68 SE 622; Henderson V. State, 5 Ga. A. 495, 63 SE 535; Reg. v. Shrimpton, 5 Cox C. C. 387. good character by showing that he had not been arrested previously, accused,52 prosecuted,53 or convicted 54 of a crime; nor is it permissible for the state to rebut evidence of good character by inquiring whether accused had been charged with,55 or convicted of,56 crime; or whether he had pleaded guilty to another offense;57 or whether the sheriff had had a warrant for his arrest.58 [§ 1126] (4) Negative Evidence. Testimony of a witness that he has been acquainted with accused for some time and under such circumstances that he would be likely to hear what was said about him and that he has never heard any one speak against his character is admissible;59 but the witness should not be allowed to go further and testify as to his inference from the fact that he has never heard the character of accused discussed.60 The fact that a witness who has lived in the same community with accused and has been acquainted with him for many years had never heard of particular incidents or circumstances affecting his character affects the weight, but not the admissibility, of his testimony as to reputation.61 is no rule which permits defendant to show by witnesses that he possesses a character superior in points of excellence to that of the average man.62 [§ 1128] (6) Number of Witnesses.63 Statutes sometimes provide that the number of witnesses which accused may call to prove his good character shall not exceed a certain limit, unless he shall provide for the payment of the fees for the witnesses called in excess thereof, and such statutes do not violate the constitutional provision that he shall have compulsory process to procure the attendance of his witnesses.64 66 69 [ 1129] c. Weight and Effect.65 While previous good character does not constitute an excuse, a defense, or a justification for the commission of a crime, nor as a matter of law raise a reasonable doubt of guilt,67 evidence of good character is substantive proof 68 and either of itself, or in connection with other evidence,70 may be sufficient to produce an acquittal by the creation of a reasonable doubt. It does not present a distinct issue,"1 and while it is of much weight in doubtful cases,72 it is not a mere makeweight to be thrown in to determine the balance in a doubtful case,73 nor should it be V. State, 169 Ind. 91 Pa. 145; Kilpatrick v. Com., 31 488, 82 NE 1039; Walker v. State, 136 Pa. 198; Becker v. Com., 2 Pa. Cas. Ind. 663, 36 NE 356; Rollins v. State, 428, 9 A 510; Com. v. Kester, 58 Pa. 62 Ind. 46. Super. 509; Com. v. Dingman, 26 Pa. Super. 615; Com. v. Carey, 2 Brewst. 404; Com. v. Stone, 6 LackLegN 241; Com. v. Shaub, 5 LancLRev 121; Com. v. Bargar, 2 LTNS 237. Utah.-State V. Van Kuran, 25 Utah 8, 69 P 60. Wash.-Klehn 584, 21 P 31. [§ 1127] (5) Character above Average. There 51. Patton v. State, (Ala.) 72 S 401; Posey v. U. S., 26 App. (D. C.) 302; State v. Marfaudille, 48 Wash. 117, 92 P 939, 14 LRANS 346, 15 Ann Cas 584. 52. State v. Marfaudille, 48 Wash. 117, 92 P 939, 14 LRANS 346, 15 Ann Cas 584. 53. Patton v. State, (Ala.) 72 S 401. 54. 302. 55. 921. Posey v. U. S., 26 App. (D. C.) Banks v. State, (Ala.) 39 S 56. Banks v. State, (Ala.) 39 S 921; Reg. v. Triganzie, 15 Ont. 294. 57. Shuffield v. State, 120 Ark. 458, 179 SW 650. 58. Murphy v. State, 108 Ala. 10, 18 S 557. 59. Ala.-Hussey v. State, 87 Ala. 121, 6 S 420. Ark. Cole v. State, 59 Ark. 50, 26 SW 377. Iowa.-State v. Nelson, 58 Iowa 208, 12 NW 253. Kan.-State v. McClellan, 79 Kan. 11, 98 P 209, 17 AnnCas 106. La.-State v. Warren, 138 La. 361, 70 S 326. Minn. State v. Lee, 22 Minn. 407, 21 AmR 769. Mo.-State v. Grate, 68 Mo. 22. N. Y.-Peo. v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N. Y. 408, 82 NE 718, 22 LRANS 650, 12 AnnCas 745 [aff 118 App. Div. 511, 103 NYS 249]. Oh.-Gandolfo v. State, 11 Oh. St. 114. W. Va.-Lemons v. State, 4 W. Va. 755, 6 AmR 293. Eng. Reg. v. Rowton, 10 Cox C. C. 25. But compare Simpson v. U. S., 184 Fed. 817, 107 CCA 89 (holding that, after a witness has testified to defendant's good reputation, his opinion as to whether or not, if anything derogatory had been said of accused, he would likely have heard of it, is immaterial). 60. State v. Warren, 138 La. 361, 70 S 326. 61. State v. Hamilton, 151 Iowa 533, 132 NW 44. 62. Cook v. State, 5 Ala. A. 11, 59 S 519. 63. Generally see infra § 2166. 64. State v. Stout, 49 Oh. St. 270, 30 NE 437. 65. Weight and sufficiency of evidence generally see infra § 1559 et seq. 66. Ark.-Rhea v. State, 104 Ark. 162, 147 SW 463. Ga.-Brazil v. State, 117 Ga. 32, 43 SE 460. Ind. Eacock Iowa.-State v. King, 122 Iowa 1, Mo.-State v. Wilson, 230 Mo. 647, N. Y.-Peo. v. Weiss, 129 App. Div. 671, 114 NYS 236. 67. Mitchell v. State, 43 Fla. 188, 30 S 803. 68. State v. Snow, 19 Del. 259, 51 69. U. S.-Edgington v. U. S., 164 Fla.-Bacon v. State, 22 Fla. 51. Iowa.-State v. Lindley, 51 Iowa 343, 1 NW 484, 33 AmR 139; State v. Northrup, 48 Iowa 583, 30 AmR 408. Kan.-State v. Jewell, 88 Kan. 130, 134, 127 P 608 [cit Cyc]; State v. Pipes, 65 Kan. 543, 70 P 363; State v. Keefe, 54 Kan. 197, 38 P 302. v. Terr., 1 Wash. 70. Edgington v. U. S., 164 U. S. 361, 17 SCt 72, 41 L. ed. 467; State v. Pipes, 65 Kan. 543, 70 P 363; Peo. v. Roach, 215 N. Y. 592, 109 NE 618, AnnCas1917A 410. 71. Com. v. Howe, 35 Pa. Super. 554; Com. v. Dingman, 26 Pa. Super. 615. 72. Webb v. State, 6 Ga. A. 353, 64 SE 1001; Chicago v. Perdue, 147 Ill. A. 536; State v. McMurphy, 52 Mo. 251; Gerke v. State, 151 Wis. 495, 139 NW 404. But see Shields v. State, 149 Ind. 395, 411, 49 NE 351 (holding that a statement "that in doubtful cases evidence of good character is conclusive in favor of the party accused of crime" is not correct; that "the jury are the exlusive judges of the facts and of the credibility of the witnesses, and if they have a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused he must be acquitted, whether there is any evidence of his good character or not"). 73. U. S.-Edgington v. U. S., 164 U. S. 361, 17 SCt 72, 41 L. ed. 467: Searway v. U. S., 184 Fed. 716, 107 CCA 635; Humes v. U. S., 182 Fed. 485, 105 CCA 158. But see U. S. v. Means, 42 Fed. 599, 606 (where the court said: "Where it is a matter of doubt, on the facts, whether any crime has been committed, character is a circumstance to turn the mind in favor of the defendant. Miss.-Lewis v. State, 93 Miss. 697, 47 S 467. But see Wesley v. State, 37 Miss. 327, 352, 75 AmD 62 (where the court said: "But while the good character of the accused is an ingredient which may be submitted to the jury, it would be going a great way too far to lay it down as a fixed rule, that proof of good character is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, when, ex-other words, character will explain cluding such proof, the evidence is sufficient to satisfy them of the guilt of the accused"). N. J. Baker v. State, 53 N. J. L. 45, 20 A 858. N. Y.-Peo. v. Conrow, 200 N. Y. 356, 93 NE 943; Peo. v. Bonier, 179 N. Y. 315, 72 NE 226, 103 AmSR 880, 189 N. Y. 108, 81 NE 949; Peo. V. Weiss, 129 App. Div. 671, 114 NYS 236; Peo. v. Kerr, 6 NYS 674, 6 N. Y. Cr. 406; Peo. v. Lamb, 2 Keyes 360, 2 AbbPrNS 148; Lowenberg v. Peo., 5 Park. Cr. 414 [aff 27 N. Y. 336]; James' Case, 1 City Hall Rec 132. Pa.-Com. v. Cate, 220 Pa. 138, 69 A 322, 123 AmSR 683; Heine v. Com., In equivocal conduct in favor of innocence, but will not outweigh satisfactory proof of guilt"). Contra U. S. v. Roudenbush, 27 F. Cas. No. 16,198, 1 Baldw. 514; U. S. v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. No. 16,322, 2 Bond 323. Ala.-Carson v. State, 50 Ala. 134: Hall v. State, 40 Ala. 698; Felix v. State, 18 Ala. 720. Cal-Peo. v. Fenwick, 45 Cal. 287: Peo. v. Ashe, 44 Cal. 288. Del.-Daniels v. State, 18 Del. 586, 48 A 196, 54 LRA 286 (reviewing authorities). Contra State v. Woods, 23 Del. 499, 77 A 490. Ga.-Thornton V. State, 107 Ga. 683, 33 SE 673. Contra Epps v. State, |