We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Evidence -- Admissibility of Similar Prior Acts -- Privilege Against Self-Degradation and Self-Incrimination.
- Authors
Baird, J. Kenneth
- Abstract
The article focuses on a court trial. During a trial for statutory rape, the girl subjected to the assault was called as witness. Defense counsel objected on grounds the evidence was immaterial, incompetent, and irrelevant, but was overruled. The witness claimed privilege against self-incrimination and self-degradation under the Utah constitution and statute. Upon denial of privilege the witness refused to answer and was imprisoned. On habeas corpus, the majority of the court held: (1) evidence of similar acts committed prior to the one charged are not here admissible; (2) the claim of privilege against testifying should have been allowed for such testimony is, (a) self-degrading and, (b) self-incriminating. Two judges concurred in part and dissented in part. On the first issue of 'admissibility,' the majority theory was the jury would be prejudiced against the defendant by the testimony if allowed to stand-alone and that the jury would be led to convict the defendant of an offense similar in character upon a different date, but not charged. This is in contrast to the minority judges who confirmed the holding but on the theory that the testimony was not pertinent to any material issue. The general rule admits evidence of prior similar acts to show intent, knowledge, or identity.
- Subjects
OFFENSES against the person; CRIMINAL procedure; CIVIL rights; CONSTITUTIONAL law; JUDGES; WITNESSES
- Publication
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology (08852731), 1939, Vol 30, p259
- ISSN
0885-2731
- Publication type
Article