74 75 confined to the purpose of discrediting the state's witnesses, nor limited to the reasonableness of defendant's explanation or the credibility of his testimony.76 Irrespective of the apparently conclusive or inconclusive nature of the other evidence, it is to be considered in connection with all the other evidence in the case in determining the general question of guilt or innocence,78 and is to be given such weight as, under all the facts and circumstances, it is entitled to in the sound judg 77 19 Ga. 102. Ind-Eacock v. State, 169 Ind. 488, 82 NE 1039; Kistler v. State, 54 Ind. 400. But see Voght v. State, 145 Ind. 12, 16, 43 NE 1049 (where, referring to evidence of good character, the court said: "But however strong this evidence might have been, it could not affect the positive testimony of appellant's misconduct on this occasion. Evidence of good reputation is all powerful, in case of uncertainty as to the force of evidence in relation to the crime charged, or where the evidence adduced to prove the charge is altogether circumstantial. In this case the facts and incidents in relation to the appellant's conduct were clearly established. The jury were of opinion that his acts showed an attempt to kill Christman, when he shot him; and his previous good character could not avail to change those acts, however much it might avail in mitigating his punishment"). Kan.-State v. Jewell, 88 Kan. 130, 134, 127 P 608 [cit Cyc]. Miss.-Powers v. State, 74 Miss. 777, 21 S 657. N. J.-Baker v. State, 53 N. J. L. 45, 47, 20 A 858 (stating that "the remark of Kinsey, C. J., in State v. Wells, 1 N. J. L. 486, 1 AmD 211, so far as it indicates a contrary opinion, is merely obiter dictum"). N. Y.-Peo. v. Conrow, 200 N. Y. 356, 93 NE 943; Peo. v. Lamb, 2 Keyes 360, 2 AbbPrNS 148 [aff 54 Barb. 342]. Contra Wagner v. Peo., 54 Barb. 367 [aff 2 Keyes 684, 4 Abb. Dec. 509]; Peo. v. Hammill, 2 Park. Cr. 223. Pa.-Com. v. Kester, 58 Pa. Super. 509; Com. v. Howe, 35 Pa. Super. 554. Tenn. Keith v. State, 127 Tenn. 40, 152 SW 1029 [overr Bennett v. State, 8 Humphr. 118]. But compare Edmonds v. State, 34 Ark. 720 (holding in effect that evidence of good character is to be admitted and considered even in clear cases, but that it is of no avail except in doubtful cases). ful cases. [a] In California (1) it was held in an early case that evidence of character is admissible only in doubtPeo. v. Josephs, 7 Cal. 129. (2) However, this case was overruled on this point in a subsequent case (Peo. v. Stewart, 28 Cal. 395), (3) but a further statement in the latter case that, after the evidence is all in, the court may as a matter of law instruct the jury that evidence as to previous good character is not entitled to any weight except in doubtful cases was not involved in the case and does not state the correct rule. "The good character of the prisoner, when proven, is itself a fact in the case-it is a circumstance tending, in a greater or less degree, to establish his innocence, and it is not to be put aside by the jury, in order to ascertain if the other facts and circumstances, considered by themselves, do not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Peo. v. Ashe, 44 Cal. 288, 291. To same effect Peo. v. Baldocchi, 10 Cal. A. 42, 101 P 28. 74. State v. Wolf, 112 Iowa 458, 84 NW 536. 75. State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 141 NW 483. 76. State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 141 NW 483. ment of the jury.79 In one jurisdiction, however, it is held that evidence of good character alone is not sufficient to create a reasonable doubt of guilt.80 The influence of the presumption against the commission of the crime arising from proof of good character varies according to the circumstances of particular cases,81 but it does not vary with the grade of the offense irrespective of the circumstances,82 except in one jurisdiction where it is held that, in the case of an unusual and atrocious crime, 77. Fla.-Mitchell V. State, 40 Ind.-Holland v. State, 131 Ind. 568, Fla. 188, 30 S 803; Bacon v. State, 31_ NE 359. 22 Fla. 51. Ill-Jupitz v. Peo., 34 Ill. 516; Guzinski v. Peo., 77 Ill. A. 275. Ind.-Kistler v. State, 54 Ind. 400. Iowa.-State V. Shultz, 158 NW 539; State v. Wolf, 112 Iowa 458, 84 NW 536; State v. Gustafson, 50 Iowa 194; State v. Northrup, 48 Iowa 583, 30 AmR 408. Kan.-State v. Deuel, 63 Kan. 811, 66 P 1037. La.-State v. Garic, 35 La. Ann. 970. Mass.-Com. v. Leonard, 140 Mass. 473, 4 NE 96, 54 AmR 485. Mich.-Peo. v. McArron, 121 Mich. 1, 79 NW 944; Peo. v. Mead, 50 Mich. 228, 15 NW 95. Minn.-State v. Beebe, 17 Minn. 241. Mo.-State v. Crow, 107 Mo. 341, 17 SW 745; State v. Howell, 100 Mo. 628, 14 SW 4. Nebr.-Latimer v. State, 55 Nebr. 609, 76 NW 207, 70 AmSR 403. N. Y.-Peo. v. Conrow, 200 N. Y. 356, 93 NE 943; Peo. v. Elliott, 163 N. Y. 11, 57 NE 103 [rev 43 App. Div. 621, 60 NYS 1145]; Stover v. Peo., 56 N. Y. 315; Cancemi v. Peo., 16 N. Y. 501; Peo. y. Friedland, 2 App. Div. 332, 37 NYS 974; Peo. v. Pollock, 51 Hun 613, 4 NYS 297; Peo. v. Nileman, 8 NYSt 300; Stephens v. Peo., 4 Park. Cr. 396 [aff 19 N. Y. 549]. N. C.-State v. Henry, 50 N. C. 65. Oh.-Stewart v. State, 22 Oh. St. 477; Harrington v. State, 19 Oh. St. 264. Or.-State v. Porter, 32 Or. 135, 49 P 964. Pa. Hanney v. Com., 116 Pa. 322, 9 A 339; Heine v. Com., 91 Pa. 145. S. C.-State v. Tarrant, 24 S. C. 593. Tex.-Lee v. State, 2 Tex. A. 338. Utah State v. Blue, 17 Utah 175, 53 P 978. W. Va.-State v. Madison, 49 W. Va. 96, 38 SE 492. Wis.-Jackson v. State, 81 Wis. 127, 51 NW 89; State v. Leppere, 66 Wis. 355, 28 NW 376. 78. U. S.-Humes V. U. S., 182 Fed. 485, 105 CCA 158; U. S. v. Jones, 31 Fed. 718. Ala.-Murphy v. State, 108 Ala. 10, 18 S 557; Newsom v. State, 107 Ala. 133, 18 S 206; Springfield v. State, 96 Ala. 81, 11 S 250, 38 AmSR 85; Williams v. State, 52 Ala. 411; Hall v. State, 40 Ala. 698; Felix v. State, 18 Ala. 720. Ark.-Rhea v. State, 104 Ark. 162, 147 SW 463. Cal.-Peo. v. French, 137 Cal. 218, 69 P 1063. Del.-State v. Naylor, 28 Del. 99, 90 A 880; State v. Dryden, 26 Del. 466, 84 A 1037; State v. Brooks, 26 Del. 203, 84 A 225; State v. Short, 25 Del. 491, 82 A 239; State v. Reese, 25 Del. 434, 79 A 217; State v. De Luca, 25 Del. 158, 77 A 742; State v. Thomas, 25 Del. 20, 78 A 640; State v. Russo, 24 Del. 538, 77 A 743; State v. Miele, 24 Del. 33, 74 A 8; State v. Hartnett, 23 Del. 204, 74 A 82; State v. Stewart, 22 Del. 435, 67 A 786; State v. Carr, 20 Del. 523, 57 A 370; State v. Snow, 19 Del. 259, 51 A 607. Ga.-Brazil v. State, 117 Ga. 32, 43 SE 460; Thornton v. State, 107 Ga. 683, 33 SE 673. III.-Guzinski v. Peo., 77 Ill. 275. A. Iowa State v. Dunn, 160 NW 302; State v. House, 108 Iowa 68, 78 NW 859. N. Y.-Peo. v. Conrow, 200 N. Y. 356, 93 NE 943; 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. Lamb, 2 Keyes 360, 2 AbbPrNS 148 [aff 54 Barb. 342]; Peo. v. Wileman, 44 Hun 187. To same effect Peo. v. Sweeney, 133 N. Y. 609, 30 NE 1005 [aff 13 NYS 25]. Okl.-Wells v. Terr., 14 Okl. 436, 78 P 124. Pa.-Com. v. Howe, 35 Pa. Super. 554; Com. v. Dingman, 26 Pa. Super. 615. Vt.-State v. Totten, 72 Vt. 73, 47 A 105. 79. U. S.-U. S. v. Kenney, 90 Fed. 257. Ala.-Carson v. State, 50 Ala. 134. Cal.-Peo. v. French, 137 Cal. 218, 69 P 1063. Del.-State v. Naylor, 28 Del. 99, 90 A 880; State v. Brown, 26 Del. 490, 85 A 797; State v. Dryden, 26 Del. 466, 84 A 1037; State v. Brooks, 26 Del. 203, 84 A 225; State v. Reese, 25 Del. 434, 79 A 217; State v. De Luca, 25 Del. 158, 77 A 742; State v. Russo, 24 Del. 538, 77 A 743; State v. Miele, 24 Del. 33, 74 A 8; State v. Short, 23 Del. 295, 75 A 787; State v. Hartnett, 23 Del. 204, 74 A 82; State v. Stewart, 22 Del. 435, 67 A 786; State v. Collins, 21 Del. 263, 62 A 224; State v. Pucca, 20 Del. 71, 55 A 831; State v. Lynn, 19 Del. 316. 51 A 878; State v. Snow, 19 Del. 259, 51 A 607. Iowa.-State v. Schultz, 158 NW 539; State v. King, 122 Iowa 1, 96 NW 712: State v. House, 108 Iowa 68, 78 NW 859. 132 SW 238. Mo.-State v. Wilson, 230 Mo. 647, 717, 121 NYS 507; Peo. v. Ellenbogen, N. Y.-Peo. v. Blatt, 136 App. Div. 114 App. Div. 182, 99 NYS 897, 20 N. Y. Cr. 263 [aff 186 N. Y. 603 mem, 79 NE 1112 mem]. [a] Sound judgment.—What weight should be given to evidence of accused's good character is to be decided by the sound judgment of the jury, and not by their fanciful judgment. Peo. v. Blatt, 136 App. Div. 717, 121 NYS 507. 80. McClellan v. State, 140 Ala. 99, 37 S 239; Eggleston V. State, 129 Ala. 80, 30 S 582, 87 AmSR 17; Peters v. State, 12 Ala. A. 133, 67 S 723; Witt v. State, 5 Ala. A. 137, 59 S 715. Contra Armor v. State, 63 Ala. 173; Carson v. State, 50 Ala. 134. 81. U. S.-U. S. v. Kenney, 90 Fed. Del.-Daniels v. State, 18 Del. 586, 48 A 196. 54 LRA 286. 257. [16 C. J.-38] proof of good character is of less avail than in the case of an offense of a lower grade.83 Bad character. When accused has placed his character in issue, the prosecution is entitled to the benefit of evidence of bad character which it has introduced. Also, where the trait of truthfulness is involved in the crime the jury should give consideration to evidence of defendant's bad reputation for truth and veracity.85 Where, however, although accused has testified in his own behalf, he has not offered character evidence in respect to the particular trait or quality involved in the alleged crime, his character other than as a witness is not involved,se and evidence of bad character introduced by the state can be considered only as affecting his credibility as a witness.87 90 [§ 1130] 2. Of Third Persons.88 Outside of the inquiry into the character of a witness which is permissible for the purpose of impeaching or discrediting him,89 and for the purpose of sustaining his character or reputation after it has been assailed, as a general rule evidence of the characand disposition of the witnesses; and if the jury believe that such witnesses are in sympathy with the act of defendant, and would as readily testify to his good character, even if they believed him guilty, the testimony is not sufficient alone to raise a reasonable doubt of his guilt). 83. Com. V. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 295, 52 AmD 711. 84. Keith v. State, 127 Tenn. 40, 152 SW 1029. 85. State v. Shaffner, 22 Del. 576, 69 A 1004 (subornation of perjury). 86. Durham v. State, 128 Tenn. 636, 163 SW 447, 51 LRANS 180. 87. State v. Traylor, 121 N. C. 674, 28 SE 493. Extent of inquiry permissible in attacking character of accused as witnesses see Witnesses [40 Cyc 2595]. 88. Bad character of person defamed see Libel and Slander [25 Cyc 583, 585]. 89. See Witnesses [40 Cyc 2594 et seq]. 90. See Witnesses [40 Cyc 2643 et seq]. 91. U. S.-Andersen v. U. S., 170 U. S. 481, 18 SCt 689, 42 L. ed. 1116. Ala.-Brown v. State, 9 Ala. A. 15, 17, 64 S 170 [cit Cyc]. Ark.-Emmons v. State, 109 Ark. 414, 160 SW 219. Ind. Walls v. State, 125 Ind. 400, 25 NE 457. Ky.-Omer v. Com., 95 Ky. 353, 25 SW 594, 15 KyL 694. Minn.-State v. Rose, 47 Minn. 47, 49 NW 404. Mo.-State v. Schmulbach, 243 Mo. 533, 147 SW 966. N. C.-State v. Staton, 114 N. C. 813, 19 SE 96. Tex.-Rose v. State, (Cr.) 186 SW 202; Dusek v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. 519, 89 SW 271; Holsey v. State, 24 Tex. A. 35, 5 SW 523. Wis. Schultz v. State, 133 Wis. 92. See Homicide [21 Cyc 910, 956]. 93. See Homicide [21 Cyc 908, 960]. 94. See Abduction §§ 19, 36-38; Rape [33 Cyc 1478]; Seduction [35 Cyc 1348]. 95. Walls v. State, 125 Ind. 400, 25 NE 457; Omer v. Com., 95 Ky. 353, 25 SW 594, 15 KyL 694. 96. Aneals v. Peo., 134 Ill. 401, 25 NE 1022. 97. Cross references: Evidence of accusation or conviction ter of third persons is irrelevant and inadmissible."1 But to this rule there are certain exceptions. Thus in a prosecution for homicide, where accused sets up self-defense, he may show that the deceased was a violent and dangerous man,92 and in such case the state may in rebuttal offer proof of the peaceable and law-abiding character of deceased.93 And in prosecutions for abduction, rape, and seduction, the question whether the female was of chaste character often becomes material.94 [§ 1131] 3. Of Codefendants. Accused cannot show the good character of one jointly indicted with him.95 The admission of evidence of previous bad character of one defendant cannot be assigned as error by his codefendants.96 [§ 1132] K. Other Offenses 97-1. In Generala. General Rule. The general rule is that, on a prosecution for a particular crime, evidence which in any manner shows or tends to show that accused has committed another crime wholly independent of that for which he is on trial, even though it is a crime of the same sort, is irrelevant and inadmissible.98 The rule extends to proof of an accusation of crime to: Other offenses: Admissions as to commission of see As part of res gestæ see supra § Evidence of: 98. see In disbarment proceedings U. S.-Boyd v. U. S., 142 U. S. Ala.-Wickard V. State, 109 Ala. 45, 19 S 491; Haley v. State, 63 Ala. 89; Mason v. State, 42 Ala. 532; Cochran v. State, 30 Ala. 542; Gibson v. State, 14 Ala. A. 111, 72 S 210; Lewis v. State, 14 Ala. A. 72, 71 S 617; Moore v. State, 10 Ala. A. 179, 64 S 520; Willingham v. State, 10 Ala. A. 161, 64 S 544; Askew v. State, 6 Ala. A. 41, 60 S 455. Ariz.-Terr. v. Youree, 3 Ariz. 346, 29 P 894. Ark.-Miller v. State, 120 Ark. 492, 179 SW 1001; Ware v. State, 91 Ark. 555, 121 SW 927; Endaily v. State, 39 Ark. 278. Cal.-Peo. v. Vertrees, 169 Cal. 404, 146 P 890; Peo. v. Glass, 158 Cal. 650, 112 P 281; Peo. v. Argentos, 156 Cal. 720, 106 P 65; Peo. v. Carpenter, 136 Cal. 391, 68 P 1027; Peo. v. Williams, 127 Cal. 212, 59 P 581; Peo. v. Griner, 124 Cal. 19, 56 P 625; Peo. v. Arlington, 123 Cal. 356, 55 P 1003; Peo. V. Vidal, 121 Cal. 221, 53 P 558; Peo. v. Elliott, 119 Cal. 593, 51 P 955; Peo. v. Baird. 104 Cal. 462, 38 P 310; Peo. v. Tucker, 104 Cal. 440, 38 P 195; Peo. v. Jones, 32 Cal. 80; Peo. v. Oliver, 29 Cal. A. 576, 156 P 1005; Peo. v. King, 23 Cal. A 259, 137 P 1076; Peo. v. Tomalty, 14 Cal. A. 224, 111 P 513. Colo.-Bigcraft v. Peo., 30 Colo. 298, 70 P 417. Del.-State v. Brown, 26 Del. 499, 85 A 797. D. C.-Ryan v. U. S., 26 App. 74, 6 AnnCas 633. Fla-Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 S 713. Ga. Alsobrook v. State, 126 Ga. 100, 54 SE 805; Nesbit v. State, 125 Ga. 51, 54 SE 195; Cawthon v. State, 119 Ga. 395, 46 SE 897; Taylor v. State, 110 Ga. 150, 35 SE 161; Whitaker v. State, 79 Ga. 87, 3 SE 403; Hatcher v. State, 18 Ga. 460; Griffin v. State, 15 Ga. A. 552, 83 SE 871; Lee v. State, 8 Ga. A. 413, 69 SE 310. Ida.-State v. Buster, 28 Ida. 110, 152 P 196. Ill.-Peo. v. King, 276 Ill. 138, 114 NE 601; Peo. v. Schultz, 260 Ill. 35, 102 NE 1045; Bishop v. Peo., 194 Ill. 365, 62 NE 785; Farris v. Peo., 129 Ill. 521, 21 NE 821, 16 AmSR 283, 4 LRA 582; Kribs v. Peo., 82 Ill. 425; Hopps v. Peo., 31 Ill. 385, 83 AmD 231; Towne v. Peo., 89 Ill. A. 258. Ind.-Underhill v. State, 114 NE 88; Strong v. State, 86 Ind. 208, 44 AmR 292; Bonsall v. State, 35 Ind. 460; Todd v. State, 31 Ind. 514; Lovell v. State, 12 Ind. 18; Smith v. State, 10 Ind. 106; Redman v. State, 1 Blackf 96. Iowa.-State v. Concord, 172 Iowa 467, 154 NW 763; State v. Robinson, 170 Iowa 267, 152 NW 590; State v. Snyder, (Iowa) 91 NW 765; State v. Carter, 112 Iowa 15, 83 NW 715; State v. Rainsbarger, 71 Iowa 746, 31 NW 865. Kan.-State v. Wheeler, 89 Kan. 160, 130 P 656; State v. Kirby, 62 Kan. 436, 63 P 752; State v. Reynolds, 5 Kan. 515. 47 P 573. Ky.-Romes v. Com., 164 Ky. 334. 175 SW 669; Morse V. Com., 129 Ky. 294, 111 SW 714, 33 KyL 831, 894; Raymond v. Com., 123 Ky. 368, 373, 96 SW 515, 29 KyL 785 [quot Cycl; Snapp v. Com., 82 Ky. 173; Flint V. Com., 81 Ky. 186, 23 SW 346; Combs V. Com., 21 SW 353, 14 KyL 703; Spurlock v. Com., 20 SW 1095. 14 KyL 605; Cargill v. Com., 13 SW 916; Sewell v. Com., 3 KyL 86. La.-State v. Oden, 130 La. 598, 58 S 351; State V. Williams, 111 La. 179, 35 S 505; State v. Bates, 46 La. Ann. 849, 15 S 204. Mass.-Com. v. Campbell, 155 Mass. 537, 30 NE 72; Com. v. Jackson, 132 Mass. 16; Com. v. Campbell, 7 Allen 541, 83 AmD 705. Mich.-Peo. v. Bullock, 173 Mich. 397, 139 NW 43; Peo. v. Giddings, 159 Mich. 523, 124 NW 546, 18 Ann Cas 844; Peo. v. Minney, 155 Mich. 534, 119 NW 918; Peo. v. Robertson, 129 Mich. 627, 89 NW 340; Peo. V. Ascher, 126 Mich. 637, 86 NW 140: Peo. v. Bennett, 122 Mich. 281. 81 NW 117; Peo. v. Schweitzer, 23 Mich. 301; Hall.v. Peo., 21 Mich. 456; Light of another crime, as well as to evidence of its actual commission.99 [§ 1133] b. Exceptions to Rule (1) In General. The admission of evidence which shows or tends to show the commission of other offenses by foot v. Peo., 16 Mich. 507; Peo. v. Miss.-Benoit v. Bay St. Louis, 103 Miss. 218, 60 S 137; Brown v. State, 72 Miss. 997, 17 S 278; Whitlock v. State, 6 S 237; King v. State, 66 Miss. 502, 6 S 188; Morris v. State, 16 Miss. 762. Mo.-State v. Banks, 258 Mo. 479, 167 SW 505; State v. Duff, 253 Mo. 415, 161 SW 683; State v. Hyde, 234 Mo. 200, 136 SW 316, AnnCas1912D 191; State v. Hale, 156 Mo. 102, 56 SW 881; State v. Smith, 125 Mo. 2, 28 SW 181; State v. Moberly, 121 Mo. 604, 26 SW 364; State v. Young, 119 Mo. 495, 24 SW 1038; State v. Reed, 85 Mo. 194; State v. Turner, 76 Mo. 350; State v. Martin, 74 Mo. 547; State v. Harrold, 38 Mo. 496; State v. Goetz, 34 Mo. 85; Columbia v. Johnson, 72 Mo. A. 232. Nebr.-Morgan v. State, 56 Nebr. 696. 77 NW 64. Nev.-State v. Vaughan, 22 Nev. 285, 39 P 733. N. H.-State v. Davis, 69 N. H. 350, 41 A 267; State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 24 AmR 69; State V. Renton, 15 N. H. 169. N. J.-State v. Hendrick, 70 N. J. L. 41, 56 A 247; Bullock v. State, 65 N. J. L. 557, 47 A 62, 86 AmSR 668; State v. Snover, 65 N. J. L. 289, 47 A 583; State v. Jackson, 65 N. J. L. 105, 46 A 767; Parks v. State, 59 N. J. L. 573, 36 A 935; Meyer v. State, 59 N. J. L. 310, 36 A 483. N. M.-State v. Graves, 21 N. M. 556, 157 P 160, 162 [cit Cyc]; Roper v. Terr., 7 N. M. 255, 33 P 1014. N. Y.-Peo. v. Buffom, 214 N. Y. 53, 108 NE 184, AnnCas1916D 962; Peo. v. Thompson, 212 N. Y. 249, 106 NE 78. LRA1915D 236, AnnCas1915D 162 [rev 161 App. Div. 948 mem, 146 NYS 1106 mem]; Peo. v. Grutz, 212 N. Y. 72. 105 NE 843, LRA1915D 229, AnnCas1915D 167 [rev 161 App. Div. 924 mem, 146 NYS 1105 mem]; Peo. v. Pettanza, 207 N. Y. 560, 101 NE 428 [rev 145 App. Div. 944 mem, 130 NYS 1124 mem]; Peo. v. Governale, 193 N. Y. 581, 86 NE 554; Peo. v. Loomis, 178 N. Y. 400, 70 NE 919 [rev 76 App. Div. 243, 78 NYS 578]; Peo. v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 61 NE 286, 62 LRA 193; Peo. v. McLaughlin, 150 N. Y. 365, 44 NE 1017; Peo. v. Nelson, 145 App. Div. 680, 130 NYS 488; Peo. v. Hosier, 132 App. Div. 146, 116 NYS 911 [aff 196 N. Y. 506 mem, 89 NE 1107 mem]; Peo. v. Gibson, 114 App. Div. 600, 99 NYS 1052, 20 N. Y. Cr. 314; Peo. v. Butler, 62 App. Div. 508, 71 NYS 129. N. C.-State v. Haight, 150 N. C. 817, 63 SE 1043; State v. McCall, 131 N. C. 798, 42 SE 894; State v. Frazier, 118 N. C. 1257, 24 SE 520. N. D.-State v. Hazlet, 16 N. D. 426, 438, 113 NW 374 [cit Cyc, and dist State v. Kent, 5 N. D. 516, 67 NW 1052, 35 LRA 518]. Oh-Barton v. State, 18 Oh. 221; Cheney v. State, 7 Oh. 222. Okl-Appleby v. State, 11 Okl. Cr. 284, 146 P 228; State v. Rule, 11 Okl. Cr. 237, 144 P 807; Koontz V. State, 10 Okl. Cr. 553, 139 P 842, AnnCas1916A 689; Hooper v. State, 7 Okl. Cr. 43, 121 P 1087; Rea v. State, 3 Okl. Cr. 269, 105 P 381. Or-State v. McClard, 81 Or. 510, 160 P 130; State v. O'Donnell, 36 Or. 222, 61 P 892; State v. Adams, 20 Or. 525, 26 P 837. Pa-Com. v. Biddle, 200 Pa. 647, 50 A 264; Com. v. Wilson, 186 Pa. 1, 40 A 283; Com. v. Saulsbury, 152 Pa. 554, 25 A 610; Goersen v. Com., 99 R. I.-State v. Letourneau, 24 R. I. S. C.-State v. Odel, 5 S. C. L. 552. Utah.-State v. Baum, 47 Utah 7, Vt.-State v. Leonard, 72 Vt. 102, 47 A 395; State v. Kelly, 65 Vt. 531, 27 A 203, 36 AmSR 884. Va.-Cole V. Com., 5 Gratt. (46 Va.) 696; Walker v. Com., 1 Leigh (32 Va.) 574. Wash.-State v. Hazzard, 75 Wash. W. Va.-State v. Sheppard, 49 W. Wis.-Davis v. State, 134 Wis. 632, (1) The defendant comes to the trial prepared to meet only the crime with which he is accused, and he cannot, from the nature of things, be prepared to defend against other crimes that may be charged against him. Moreover, it is not the policy of the law to convict a man of one crime by showing that he has, at some time, been guilty of another." State v. Eder, 36 Wash. 482, 484, 78 P 1023. (2) "The rule, therefore, rests upon two grounds: First, the impropriety of inferring from the commission of one crime that the defendant is guilty of another, and, second, the constitutional objection to compelling a defendant to meet charges of which the indictment gives no information." State v. Hyde, 234 Mo. 200, 225, 136 SW 316, AnnCas 1912D 191. [c] Leading cases.-(1) State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 24 AmR 69, has been referred to as "a leading case upon the subject." Peo. v. Minney, 155 Mich. 534, 119 NW 918. (2) Another leading case is Goersen v. Com., 99 Pa. 388. Com. v. Shields, 50 Pa. Super. 1. (3) Rex v. Bond, [1906] 2 K. B. 389, has also been declared to be a leading case. Rex v. Iman Din, 15 B. C. 476. (4) The latter case is remarkable for the diversity of views of the seven judges who heard it. Rex v. Pollard, 19 Ont. L. 96, 14 OntWR 399. [d] Where positive evidence has been introduced by the state, evidence of extraneous and contemporary crimes is not admissible. Gardner v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 400, 117 SW 148. [e] Corroboration.-(1) The fact that the evidence of another crime corroborates, or tends to corroborate, a witness who testifies to confessions of defendant does not render it admissible. Peo. V. Schweitzer, 23 Mich. 301. (2) However, it has been stated generally that the rule has "exceptions in those cases in which the evidence offered has a natural tendency to corroborate or supple-· ment admitted direct evidence." Peo. v. Thompson, 212 N. Y. 249, 251. 106 NE 78, LRA1915D 236, AnnCas1915D 162. 99. Peo. v. Argentos, 156 Cal. 720, 106 P 65. 1. Effler v. State, 27 Del. 62, 85 A 731; Rex v. Bond, [1906] 2 K. B. 389, 398; Rex v. Pollard, 19 Ont. L. 96, 14 OntWR 399. [a] Historical statement.-"The cases in which it was first received were cases of the uttering of forged. paper and of fraud, and it appears to have been for some time confined to these. See Reg. v. Oddy, 2 Den. C. C. 264, and Reg. v. Winslow, 8 Cox C. C. 397. The case of Reg. v. Geering, 18 L. J. M. C. 215, appears to be the first in which it was acted upon in a case of murder." Rex v. Pollard, 19 Ont. L. 96, 105, 14 OntWR 399. Wyo. Fields v. Terr., 1 Wyo. 78. Eng.-Rex v. Bond, [1906] 2 K. B. 389; Reg. v. Holt, Bell C. C. 280; Rex v. Barron, 24 Cox C. C. 83; Reg. v. Flannagan, 15 Cox C. C. 403; Reg. v. Winslow, 8 Cox C. C. 397; Reg. v. McDonnell, 5 Cox C. C. 153; Reg. v. Tay-It has been said that, while the exlor, 5 Cox C. C. 138; Rex v. Lloyd, 7 C. & P. 318, 32 ECL 633; Rex V. Birdseye. 4 C. & P. 386, 19 ECL 566; Rex v. Smith, 2 C. & P. 633, 12 ECL 776. B. C.-Rex v. Iman Din, 15 B. C. [a] "This is but the reiteration of [b] "The rule is founded in reason. 2. See infra §§ 1134-1141. [a] Classification of exceptions.ceptions to the rule have by common consent been grouped under five or six heads, they cannot be classified or enumerated scientifically, nor can the subject be treated with dogmatic or scientific precision, but that, in the final analysis, the application of the general rule and its recognized exceptions must depend upon the special facts. Peo. v. Grutz, 212 N. Y. 72. 105 NE 843 [rev 161 App. Div. 924 mem, 146 NYS 1105 mem], LRA 1915D 229, AnnCas1915D 167. 3. See supra § 1132. 4. State v. Myers, 82 Mo. 558, 52 AmR 389. be strictly enforced,5 and should not be departed from except under conditions which clearly justify such a departure." [§ 1134] (2) Relevancy in General. The general rule does not apply where the evidence of another crime tends directly to prove defendant's guilt of the crime charged.' Evidence which is relevant to defendant's guilt is not rendered inadmissible because it proves or tends to prove him guilty of 5. Peo. v. Thau, 219 N. Y. 39, NE 556 (rev 168 App. Div. 842, NYS 470]. another and distinct crime. It often happens that two distinct offenses are so inseparably connected that the proof of one necessarily involves proving the other, and in such a case, on a prosecution for one, evidence proving it cannot be excluded because it also proves the other." [§ 1135] (3) To Prove Particular Matters(a) Identity. It has been said that evidence of other crimes committed by accused is relevant to 113 | 175 SW 73; State v. Hyde, 234 Mo. | 184; Leslie v. State, (Cr.) 47 SW 154 200, 136 SW 316, AnnCas1912D 191; 367; Callison v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. State v. Bell, 212 Mo. 111, 111 SW 211, 39 SW 300; Hanks v. State, (Cr.) 6. State v. Eder, 36 Wash. 482, 24; State v. Bates, 182 Mo. 70, 81 38 SW 173; English v. State, 34 Tex. 78 P 1023. SW 408; State v. Jones, 171 Mo. 401, Cr. 190, 30 SW 233; Jones v. State, 33 7. 71 SW 680, 94 AmSR 786; State v. Tex. Cr. 492, 26 SW 1082, 47 AmSR Craft, 164 Mo. 631, 65 SW 280; State 46; Musgrave v. State, 28 Tex. A. 57, v. Carr, 146 Mo. 1, 47 SW 790; State 11 SW 927; Perigo v. State, 25 Tex. v. Balch, 136 Mo. 103, 37 SW 808; A. 533, 8 SW 660; Blakely v. State, State v. Braunschweig, 38 Mo. 587; 24 Tex. A. 616, 7 SW 233, 5 AmSR State v. Harrold, 38 Mo. 496. 912; Williams v. State, 15 Tex. A. See cases infra this section. 8. U. S.-Moore v. U. S., 150 U. S. 57, 14 SCt 26, 37 L. ed. 996; Tucker v. U. S., 224 Fed. 833, 140 CCA 279; Lueders v. U. S., 210 Fed. 419; Jones v. U. S., 179 Fed. 584, 103 CCA 142; Wolfson v. U. S., 101 Fed. 430, 102 Fed. 134, 41 CCA 422 [certiorari den 180 U. S. 637, 21 SCt 919, 45 L. ed. 710]. Ala.-Ray v. State, 126 Ala. 9, 28 S 634; Horn v. State, 102 Ala. 144, 15 S 278; Kirkwood v. State, 3 Ala. A. 15, 19, 57 S 504 [cit Cyc]. Ark.-Renfroe v. State, 84 Ark. 16, 104 SW 542. Cal.-Peo. V. Argentos, 156 Cal. 720, 106 P 65; Peo. v. Gleason, 127 Cal. 323, 59 P 592; Peo. v. Ebanks, 117 Cal. 652, 49 P 1049, 40 LRA 269; Peo. v. Adams, 85 Cal. 231, 24 P 629; Peo. v. Rogers, 71 Cal, 565, 12 P 679; Peo. v. Panagoit, 25 Cal. A. 158, 143 P 70; Peo. v. Wilson, 14 Cal. A. 515, 112 P 579; Peo. v. Tomalty, 14 Cal. A. 224, 111 P 513; Peo. v. McCarthy, 14 Cal. A. 148, 111 P 274; Peo. v. Smith, 9 Cal. A. 644, 99 P 1111. Fla.-Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 S 713; Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 S 474. Ga. Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243, 80 SE 1016; Hall v. State, 7 Ga. A. 115, 66 SE 390; Ray v. State, 4 Ga. A. 67, 70, 60 SE 816 [cit Cyc]. Ida.-State v. Lancaster, 10 Ida. 410, 78 P 1081. Ill.-Peo. v. Moeller, 260 I11. 375, 103 NE 216; Glover V. Peo., 204 Ill. 170, 68 NE 464; Williams v. Peo., 196 Ill. 173, 63 NE 681; Crane v. Peo., 168 111. 395, 48 NE 54 [aff 65 Ill. A. 492]; Parkinson v. Peo., 24 NE 772; McDonald v. Peo., 25 Ill. A. 350 [rev on other grounds 126 Ill. 150, 18 NE 817, 9 AmSR 547]. Ind.-Cross v. State, 138 Ind. 254, 37 NE 790; Frazier v. State, 135 Ind. 38, 34 NE 817; Fletcher v. State, 49 Ind. 124. 19 AmR 673. Iowa.-State v. King, 117 Iowa 484, 91 NW 768; State v. Dexter, 115 Iowa 678, 87 NW 417. Kan.-State v. Hansford, 81 Kan. 300, 106 P 738; State v. Franklin, 60 Kan. 798, 77 P 588; State v. Cowen, 56 Kan. 470, 43 P 687; State v. Adams, 20 Kan. 311; State v. Folwell, 14 Kan. 105; McFarland v. State, 4 Kan. 68. Ky. Good v. Com., 12 KyL 468. La.-State V. Anderson, 120 La. 331, 45 S 267; State v. Fontenot, 48 La. Ann. 305, 19 S 111; State v. Munco, 12 La. Ann. 625. Mass.- -Com. V. Schaffner, 146 Mass. 512, 16 NE 280; Com. v. Blood, 141 Mass. 571, 6 NE 769; Com. v. Harrison, 11 Gray 308; Com. v. Call, 21 Pick. 515. Mich.-Peo. V. MacGregor, 178 Mich. 436, 144 NW 869; Peo. v. Giddings, 159 Mich. 523, 124 NW 546, 18 AnnCas 844: Peo. v. Quimby, 134 Mich. 625, 96 NW 1061; Peo. v. Marble, 38 Mich. 117. Minn.-State V. Ames, 90 Minn. 183, 96 NW 330; State v. Wills, 70 Minn. 403, 73 NW 177; State v. Madigan, 57 Minn. 425, 59 NW 490. Mo.-State v. Sherman, 264 Mo. 374, N. H.-State v. Davis, 69 N. H. 104. 350, 41 A 267. N. J.-State v. Snover, 65 N. J. L. 289, 47 A 583; State v. Jackson, 65 N. J. L. 62, 46 A 767. N. M.-State v. Pino, 21 N. M. 660, 158 P 131. Vt. State v. Grace, 86 Vt. 470, 86 A 162; State v. Willett, 78 Vt. 157, 62 A 48; State v. Barr, 78 Vt. 97, 62 A 43. Va.-Burr v. Com., 4 Gratt. (45 Va.) 534. Wash.-State v. Leroy, 61 Wash. 405, 413, 112 P 635 [cit Cyc]; State v. Thuna, 59 Wash. 689, 109 P 331, 111 P 768, 140 AmSR 902; State v. Norris, 27 Wash. 453, 67 P 983; State v. Craemer, 12 Wash. 217, 40 P 944. Wis.-Dietz v. State, 149 Wis. 462. 136 NW 166, AnnCas1913C 732; Lamphere v. State, 114 Wis. 193, 89 NW 128. Wyo.-Horn v. State, 12 Wyo. 80, 73 P 705. Eng. Reg. v. May, 1 Cox C. C. 236. Can.-Rex v. Minchin, 18 DomLR 340, 6 West Wkly 800, 23 CanCrCas 414 [aff 7 Alta. L. 148, 15 DomLR 792, 22 CanCrCas 254]. N. Y.-Peo. v. Thau, 219 N. Y. 39, 113 NE 556 [rev_168 App. Div. 842, 154 NYS 470]; Peo. v. Grutz, 212 N. Y. 72, 105 NE 843, LRA1915D 229, AnnCas1915D 167 [rev 161 App. Div. 924 mem, 146 NYS 1105 mem]; Peo. v. Rogers, 192 N. Y. 331, 85 NE 135, 15 AnnCas 177; Peo. v. Place, 157 N. Y. 584, 52 NE 576; Peo. v. Van Tassel, 156 N. Y. 561, 51 NE 274; Peo. v. Peckens, 153 N. Y. 576, 47 NE 383 [aff 12 App. Div. 626 mem, 43 NYS 1160 mem]; Peo. v. Shea. 147 N. Y. 78. 41 NE 505; Peo. v. McKane, 143 N. Y. 455, 38 NE 950 [aff 80 Hun 322, 30 NYS 95]; Peo. v. Harris, 136 N. Y. 423, 33 NE 65; Peo. v. Murphy, 135 N. Y. 450, 32 NE 138; Hope v. Peo., 83 N. Y. 418, 38 AmR 460; Weed v Peo., 56 N. Y. 628; Copperman v. Peo., 56 N. Y. 591; Peo. v. Duffy, 160 App. Div. 385, 145 NYS 699 [aff 212 N. Y. 57, 105 NE 839, [a] Circumstantial evidence.-"The LRA1915B 103]; Peo. v. Furlong, 140 authorities are to the effect that App. Div. 179, 125 NYS 164 [aff 201 when it is sought to show guilt of N. Y. 511 mem, 94 NE 1096 mem]; an accused by circumstantial eviPeo. v. Dudenhausen, 130 App. Div. dence, if the proof of another offense 760, 115 NYS 374 [aff 195 N. Y. 554 connects, or tends to connect, him mem, 88 NE 1127 mem]; Peo. V. with the alleged offense for which he Coombs, 36 App. Div. 284, 55 NYS 276, is being tried, or when it tends to 13 N. Y. Cr. 525 [aff 158 N. Y. defeat his defensive theory, such evi532, 53 NE 527]; Peo. v. Schooley, dence is admissible, although it tends 89 Hun 391, 35 NYS 429 [aff 149 to prove another distinct crime." N. Y. 99, 43 NE 536]; Peo. v. Jones. Longoria v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 188 SW 34 Hun 620, 3 N. Y. Cr. 252 [aff 99 988, 990. N. Y. 667, 3 N. Y. Cr. 260, 2 NE 49]; Watson v. Peo., 64 Barb. 130; Peo. v. Furlong, 127 NYS 422; Stout v. Peo., 4 Park. Cr. 71. Okl.-Harmon v. Terr., 15 Okl. 147, 79 P 765; State v. Rule, 11 Okl. Cr. 237, 247, 144 P 807 [quot Cyc]; Cross v. State, 11 Okl. Cr. 117, 143 P 202; Miller v. State, 9 Okl. Cr. 255, 131 P 717, LRA1915A 1088; Hunter v. State, 2 Okl. Cr. 533, 107 P 444; Vickers v. U. S., 1 Okl. Cr. 452, 563, 98 P 467 [cit Cyc]. Or.-State v. Robinson, 32 Or. 43, 48 P 357; State v. Baker, 23 Or. 441, 32 P 161; State v. Roberts, 15 Or. 187, 13 P 896. Pa.-Shaffner v. Com., 72 Pa. 60, 13 AmR 649; Com. v. Shanor, 29 Pa. Super. 358. S. C.-State v. 239, 70 SE 729. Richey, 88 S. C. S. D.-State v. Stevens, 16 S. D. 309, 92 NW 420; State v. Halpin, 16 S. D. 170, 91 NW 605; State v. Phelps, 5 S. D. 480, 59 NW 471. Tex.-Hewitt v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. 46, 167 SW 40; Usher v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 93, 81 SW 309; West v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 417, 71 SW 967; Camarillo v. State, (Cr.) 68 SW 795; Manning v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. 302, 65 SW 920, 96 AmSR 873; Colter v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 78, 51 SW 945; Tidwell v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 38, 47 SW 466, 48 SW Alta.-Rex v. Minchin, 7 Alta. L. 148, 15 DomLR 792, 22 CanCrCas 254. 9. D. C.-Ryan v. U. S., 26 App. 74, 6 AnnCas 633. Ky.-Burnett v. Com., 172 Ky. 398, 189 SW 460; Raymond v. Com., 123 Ky. 368, 96 SW 515, 29 KyL 785. Mich.-Peo. v. Marble, 38 Mich. 117. Mont.-State v. Willette, 46 Mont. 326, 329, 127 P 1013 [cit Cycl. N. M.-State v. Graves, 21 N. M. 556, 157 P 160, 162 [quot Cyc]. Okl.-Tempy v. State, 9 Okl. Cr. 446, 132 P 383, 384. Or.-State v. Roberts, 15 Or. 187, 13 P 896. Eng.-Rex v. Bond, [1906] 2 K. B. 389, 400. "The general rule cannot be applied where the facts which constitute distinct offences are at the same time part of the transaction which is the subject of the indictment. Evidence is necessarily admissible as to acts which are so closely and inextricably mixed up with the history of the guilty act itself as to form part of one chain of relevant circumstances, and so could not be excluded in the presentment of the case before the jury without the evidence being thereby rendered unintelligible." Per Kennedy, J., in Rex v. Bond, [1906] 2 K. B. 389, 400. Other offenses constituting part of res gestæ see supra § 1115. prove his identity; but it is more correct to say that, that charged.13 In other words, where guilt can- [§ 1137] (c) Intent.16 Evidence of other crimes similar to that charged is relevant and admissible when it shows or tends to show a particular criminal intent which is necessary to constitute the crime charged.17 Any fact which proves or tends to prove the particular intent is competent, and cannot be excluded because it incidentally proves an independent crime.18 Where the question is whether a certain act was intentional or was done by acci State, 27 Tex. A. 513, 11 SW 630, 4 10. Ala.-Dillard v. State, 151 Ala. Fla.-Langford v. State, 33 Fla. | Cr. 1, 18 SW 647; Brackenridge v. 92, 44 S 537; Curtis v. State, 78 233, 14 S 815. Ala. 12; Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 313; Mason v. State, 42 Ala. 532; Yarborough v. State, 41 Ala. 405. Ark.-Reed v. State, 54 Ark. 621, 16 SW 819. Cal-Peo. v. McGilver, 67 Cal. 55, 7 P 49. Ga.-Eaker v. State, 4 Ga. A. 649, 62 SE 99. Ill.-Peo. v. King, 276 Ill. 138, 114 NE 601; Peo. v. Jennings, 252 Ill. 534, 96 NE 1077, 43 LRANS 1206; Cross v. Peo., 47 Ill. 152, 95 AmD 474. Ind.-Dotterrer v. State, 172 Ind. 357, 88 NE 689, 30 LRANS 846; Frazer v. State, 135 Ind. 38, 34 NE 817. Iowa.-State v. Harris, 153 Iowa 592. 133 NW 1078, 1080 [cit Cyc]. Ky.-Richardson v. Com., 166 Ky. 570, 179 SW 458; Morse v. Com., 129 Ky 294, 111 SW 714, 33 KyL 831, 894; Tye v. Com., 3 KyL 59. Minn.-State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 65. 41 NW 459. Mo.-State v. Hyde, 234 Mo. 200, 136 SW 316, AnnCas1912D 191; State V. Spaugh, 200 Mo. 571, 98 SW 55; State v. Balch, 136 Mo. 103, 37 SW 808. N. Y.-Peo. v. Thau, 219 N. Y. 39, 113 NE 556 [rev 168 App. Div. 842, 154 NYS 470]; Peo. v. Schooley, 149 N. Y. 99, 43 NE 536 [aff 89 Hun 391, 35 NYS 429]; Peo. v. Murphy, 135 N. Y. 450, 32 NE 138. Oh.-Coble v. State, 31 Oh. St. 100. Pa. Goersen v. Com., 99 Pa. 388; Com. v. Griffin, 42 Pa. Super. 597. R. I-State v. Fitzsimon, 18 R. I. 236, 27 A 446, 49 AmSR 766. Tenn.-Links v. State, 13 Lea. 701; State v. Becton, 7 Baxt. 138. Tex-Wyatt v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 73. 114 SW 812; Kelley v. State, 18 Tex. A. 262; Washington v. State, 8 Tex. A. 377; Satterwhite v. State, 6 Tex. A. 609. Wash.-State v. Leroy, 61 Wash. 405. 112 P 635. Eng.-Perkins v. Jeffery, [1915] 2 K. B. 702; Rex v. Clewes, 4 C. & P. 221, 19 ECL 485. 11. Effler v. State, 27 Del. 62, 85 A 731. See also U. S. v. Boyd, 142 U. S. 450, 12 SCt 292, 25 L. ed. 1077 [rev 45 Fed. 851] (where such evidence was erroneously admitted). 12. Billings v. U. S., 42 App. (D. C.) 413. 13. U. S.-U. S. V. Russell, 19 Fed 591; U S. v Roudenbush, 27 F. Cas. No. 16,198, Baldw. 514. Ala.-Cox v. State, 162 Ala. 66, 50 S 398; Lang v. State, 97 Ala. 41, 12 S 183; Stanley v. State, 88 Ala. 154, 7 S 273; Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala, 313; Mason v. State, 42 Ala. 532; Tharp v. State, 15 Ala. 749. Ark-State v. Dulaney, 87 Ark. 17, 112 SW 158, 15 AnnCas 192. Cal.-Peo. v. Neyce, 86 Cal. 393, 24 P 1091; Peo. v. Gray, 66 Cal. 271, 5 P 240. Del.-State v. Tindal, 5 Del. 488. D. C.-Ryan v. U. S., 26 App. 74, 6 AnnCas 633. Ill.-Peo. v. Hagenow, 236 Ill. 514, 86 NE 370; Du Bois v. Peo., 200 Ill. 157, 65 NE 658; Jackson v. Peo., 18 III. A. 508. Ind.-Thomas v. State, 103 Ind. 419, 2 NE 808; McCartney v. State, 3 Ind. 353, 56 AmD 510; Courtney v. State, 5 Ind. A. 356, 32 NE 335. Ky.-Com. v. Grief, 27 SW 814, 16 KyL 198; Mount v. Com., 1 Duv. 90; Devoto v. Com., 3 Metc. 417. Me.-State v. McAllister, 24 Me. 139. Mass.-Com. v. White, 145 Mass. 392, 14 NE 611; Com. v. Price, 10 Gray 472, 71 AmD 668; Com. v. Percival, Thach. Cr. 293; Com. v. Woodbury, Thach. Cr. 47. Mich.-Peo. v. Seaman, 107 Mich. 348, 65 NW 203, 61 AmSR 326; Peo. v. Clarkson, 56 Mich. 164, 22 NW 258. Mo.-State v. Mix, 15 Mo. 153. Nebr.-Goldsberry V. State, 66 Nebr. 312, 92 NW 906; Morgan v. State, 56 Nebr. 696, 77 NW 64; Berghoff v. State, 25 Nebr. 213. 41 NW 136; Cowan v. State, 22 Nebr. 519, 35 NW 405. N. J.-State v. Robinson, 16 N. J. L. 507; State v. Van Houten, 3 N. J. L. 248. 4 AmD 407. N. Y.-Peo. v. Marrin, 205 N. Y. 275, 98 NE 474. 43 LRANS 754 [aff 147 App. Div. 903 mem, 131 NYS 1134 mem]; Peo. V. Doody, 172 N. Y. 165, 64 NE 807 [aff 72 App. Div. 372, 76 NYS 606]; Peo. v. McClure, 148 N. Y. 95, 42 NE 523 [rev 88 Hun 505, 34 NYS 9741; Peo. v. Harris, 136 N. Y. 423, 33 NE 65; Coleman v. Peo., 58 N. Y. 555; Weyman v. Peo. 4 Hun 511 [aff 62 N. Y. 623]; Copperman v. Peo., 1 Hun 15 [aff 56 N. Y. 591]; Peo. v. Hopson, i Den. 574; Peo. v. Lyon, 1 N. Y. Cr. 400 [aff 33 Hun 623 mem (rev on other grounds 99| N. Y. 210, 1 NE 673)]. N. C.-State v. Murphy, 84 N. C. 742; State v. Twitty, 9 N. C. 248. Oh.-Bainbridge v. State, 30 Oh. St. 264; Shriedly v. State, 23 Oh. St. 130; Hess v. State, 5 Oh. 5, 22 AmD 767. Okl.-State v. Rule, 11 Okl. Cr. 237, 247, 144 P 807 [quot Cyc]. Pa.-Com. v. Swab, 59 Pa. Super: 485; Com. v. Hutchinson, 6 Pa. Super. 405; Com. v. Charles, 4 Pittsb LegJNS 11; Com. v. House, 41 Wkly NC 246. Philippine.-U. S. v. Madrigal, 27 Philippine 347. R. I.-State V. Habib, 18 R. I. 558, 30 A 462; State v. McDonald, 14 R. I. 270. S. C.-State v. Crawford, 39 S. C. 343, 17 SE 799; State v. Williams, 31 S. C. L. 418, 45 AmD 741; State v. Petty, 16 S. C. L. 59. S. D.-State v. Stevens, 16 S. D. 309, 92 NW 420; State v. Phelps, 5 S. D. 480, 59 NW 471. Tenn. Links v. State, 13 Lea 701; Wiley v. State, 3 Coldw. 362. Tex.-Gray v. State, (Cr.) 72 SW 169; Strang v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 219, 22 SW 680; Morgan v. State, 31 Tex. Va.-Hendrick V. Com., 5 Leigh (32 Va.) 707; Martin v. Com., 2 Leigh (29 Va.) 745. Wis. Dietz v. State, 149 Wis. 462, 136 NW 166, AnnCas1913C 732. Eng.-Reg. v. Forster, 6 Cox C. C. 521. [a] A conspicuous illustration is found in prosecutions for receiving stolen property. See infra § 1195. 14. Peo. v. Hudson Valley Constr. Co., 217 N. Y. 172, 111 NE 472 [aff 165 App. Div. 626, 151 NYS 314]. 15. Peo. V. Lonsdale, 122 Mich. 388, 81 NW 277. 16. Other crimes, part of plan or system, as showing intent see infra § 1140. 17. See cases infra this section. 18. U. S.-Moffatt v. U. S., 232 Fed. 522, 146 CCA 480; Schultz v. U. S., 200 Fed. 234, 118 CCA 420; Prettyman v. U. S., 180 Fed. 30, 103 CCA 384; Walsh v. U. S., 174 Fed. 615, 98 CCA 461 [certiorari den 215 U. S. 609, 30 SCt 409, 54 L. ed. 347]; U. S. v. Kenney, 90 Fed. 257; Spurr v. U. S., 87 Fed. 701, 31 CCA 202 [rev on other grounds 174 U. S. 728, 19 SCt 812, 43 L. ed. 1150]; U. S. v. Watson, 35 Fed. 358; U. S. v. Flemming, 18 Fed. 907; U. S. v. Snyder, 14 Fed. 554, 4 McCrary 618. Ala.-Stanley v. State, 88 Ala. 154, 7 S 273; Lawrence v. State, 84 Ala. 424, 5 S 33; Curtis v. State, 78 Ala. 12; Ross v. State, 62 Ala, 224; Yarborough v. State, 41 Ala. 405. Ark. Setzer v. State, 110 Ark. 226, 161 SW 190; State v. Dulaney, 87 Ark. 17, 112 SW 158, 15 AnnCas 192. Cal.-Peo. v. Cobler, 108 Cal. 538, 41 P 401; Peo. v. Bidleman, 104 Cal. 608, 38 P 502; Peo. v. Gray, 66 Cal. 271, 5 P 240; Peo. v. Kizer, 22 Cal. A. 10, 133 P 516, 521, 134 P 346; Peo. v. Grow, 16 Cal. A. 147, 116 P 369. Colo.-Warford v. Peo., 43 Colo. 107, 96 P 556. Del.-Effler v. State, 27 Del. 62, 85 A 731; State v. Brown, 26 Del. 499, 503, 85 A 797 [cit Cyc]. D. C.-Partridge v. Ú. S., 39 App. 571, AnnCas1917D 622; Ryan v. U. S., 26 D. C. 74, 6 AnnCas 633. Fla.-Presley v. State, 63 Fla. 37, 57 S 605. Ga.-McDuffie v. State, 17 Ga. A. 342, 86 SE 821; Lee v. State, 8 Ga. A. 413, 69 SE 310. Ida. State v. McGann, 8 Ida. 40, 66 P 823. Ill. Peo. v. Hagenow, 236 Ill. 514, 86 NE 370; Henry v. Peo., 198 III. 162, 65 NE 120; Painter v. Peo., 147 III. 444, 35 NE 64; Peo. v. Young, 188 Ill. A. 208. Ind. Kahn v. State, 182 Ind. 1, 105 NE 385; Higgins v. State, 157 Ind. 57, 60 NE 685; Crum v. State, 148 Ind. 401, 47 NE 833; Thomas v. State, 103 Ind. 419, 2 NE 808; McCartney v. State, 3 Ind. 353, 56 AmD 510. Iowa.-State v. Roscum, 119 Iowa 330, 93 NW 295; State v. King, 117 Iowa 484, 91 NW 768; State v. Des |