of finding such instruments,19 should not be received in evidence in the absence of proof of defendant's connection therewith,20 or in the absence of proof that they were forgeries.21 30 31 guilty knowledge 26 and the character of the place." [§ 1165] 24. Homicide.28 The general rule that evidence which shows or tends to show the commission, by accused, of other separate and distinct crimes is not admissible 29 is applicable in homicide cases. The exceptions to the general rule are also applicable, and evidence is not to be excluded because it shows or tends to show the commission of other offenses where it is otherwise admissible,3: as where it tends to show that the deceased was actually slain by violence;33 or where it points to, or tends to identify, accused as the slayer of deceased; 34 or where it shows or tends to show Oh.-Farrer v. State, 2 Oh. St. 54. Pa. Snyder v. Com., 85 Pa. 519. Tenn.-Gardner v. State, 121 Tenn. 684, 120 SW 816; Stone v. State, 4 Humphr. 27. [§ 1164] 23. Gaming. In prosecutions for the various statutory offenses falling under the general head of gaming, evidence which is otherwise relevant is not rendered inadmissible by the fact that it proves or tends to prove other offenses.22 Conversely, evidence of other offenses should be excluded where it is wholly foreign to the issues being tried.23 Evidence of similar acts is received 24 to throw light on the act charged,25 as well as to show 19. Peo. v. Bird, 124 Cal. 32, 56 P 639. 20. See cases supra notes 18, 19. 21. Carrell v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 184 SW 190. 22. State v. Landrum, 127 Mo. A. 653, 106 SW 1111; State v. Sylvester, 40 Mont. 79, 105 P 86; Bird v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. 611, 148 SW 738. 23. Johnson v. Com., 144 Ky. 287, 137 SW 1079; Baldwin v. State, 11 Okl. Cr. 228, 144 P 634; Dupree v. State, 10 Okl. Cr. 65, 134 P 86. 24. Parshall v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 177, 138 SW 759; Rasor v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. 10, 121 SW 512. 25. Peo. v. Schwartz, 14 Cal. A. 9, 110 P 969. 26. Peo. v. Strosnider, 264 Ill. 434, 106 NE 229; Peo. v. Viskniskki, 255 Ill. 384, 99 NE 621 [aff 169 Ill. A. 230]; State v. Behan, 113 La. 701, 37 S 607; State v. Lee, 228 Mo. 480, 128 SW 987. 27. Chase v. Peo., 2 Colo. 509; State v. Behan, 113 La. 701, 37 S 607. 28. Proof of other offenses to show grounds for arrest by officer killed see Homicide [21 Cyc 945]. 29. See supra § 1132. 30. Ala.-Hill v. State, 194 Ala. 11, 69 S 941; Robinson v. State, 5 Ala. A. 247, 59 S 321. Ariz.-Crowell v. State, 15 Ariz. 66, 136 P 279. Ark.-Jones v. State, 88 Ark. 579, 115 SW 166; Ackers v. State, 73 Ark. 262, 83 SW 909; Felker v. State, 54 Ark. 489, 16 SW 663. Cal.-Peo. v. Lane, 100 Cal. 379, 34 P 856. Ga.-Hightower v. State, 14 Ga. A. 246, 80 SE 684. Ill.-Peo. v. King, 276 Ill. 138, 114 NE 601; Brom v. Peo., 216 Ill. 148, 74 NE 790; Farris v. Peo., 129 Ill. 521, 21 NE 821, 16 AmSR 283, 4 LRA 582. Iowa.-State v. Crofford, 121 Iowa 395, 96 NW 889. Kan.-State v. Kirby, 62 Kan. 436, 63 P 752. Tex.-Menefee v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. Utah.-State v. Shockley, 29 Utah [a] Subsequent offense.-Evidence 31. See supra §§ 1133-1141. 32. Ala. Granberry v. State, 182 Ark.- -Vasser v. State, 75 Ark. 373, Cal.-Peo, v. O'Bryan, 165 Cal. 55, Colo.-Piela v. Peo., 6 Colo. 343. Ky. Watson v. Com., 132 Ky. 46, Mich.-Peo. v. Ascher, 126 Mich. 637, 86 NW 140. Iowa.-State v. Dooley, 89 Iowa 584, 57 NW 414; State v. Gainor, 84 Iowa 209, 50 NW 947. Kan.-State v. Nordmark, 84 Kan. Minn.-State V. Hoyt, 13 Minn. 628, 114 P 1068. 132. Miss. Kearney v. State, 68 Miss. 233, 8 S 292. Mo.-State v. Banks, 258 Mo. 479. 167 SW 505; State v. McNamara, 212 Mo. 150, 110 SW 1067. Nebr. Wilson v. State, 87 Nebr. 638, 128 NW 38. N. H.-State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 24 AmR 69. N. Y.-Peo. v. Buffom, 214 N. Y. 53, 108 NE 184, AnnCas1916D 962; Peo. v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 61 NE 286, 10 NYAnnCas 256, 62 LRA 193; Peo. v. Follette, 164 App. Div. 272, 149 NYS 888. Ky. Gross v. Com., 151 Ky. 87, 151 SW 36; Miracle v. Com., 148 Ky. 453, 146 SW 1136. 117 La.-State v. Blount, 124 La. 202, 175 SW 69; State v. Cavin, 199 Mo. 154, 97 SW 573; State v. Bailey, 190 Mo. 257, 88 SW 733; State v. Rudolph, 187 Mo. 67, 85 SW 584; State v. Sanders, 76 Mo. 35 (attempt to stab bystander in order to escape). Nev.-State v. Salgado, 38 Nev. 64, 145 P 919, 150 P 764; State v. Roberts, 28 Nev. 350, 82 P 100. N. J.-State v. Gallagher, 83 N. J. L. 321, 85 A 207. N. Y.-Peo. v. Austin, 199 N. Y. 446, 93 NE 57; Peo. v. Hill, 198 N. Y. 64, 91 NE 272; Peo. v. Governale, 193 N. Y. 581, 86 NE 554; 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. Pallister, 138 N. Y. 601, 33 NE 741; Peo. v. Colburn, 162 App. Div. 651, 147 NYS 689. N. C.-State v. Mace, 118 N. C 1244, 24 SE 798. Or.-State v. La Rose, 54 Or. 555, 104 P 299. Pa.-Com. v. Biddle, 200 Pa. 647, 50 A 264. Tex.-Serrato v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. 413, 171 SW 1133; Norris v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. 559, 61 SW 493; Crews V. State, 34 Tex. Cr. 533, 31 SW 373: Richards v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. 277, 30 SW 229; Hargrove v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. 431, 26 SW 993; Wilkerson v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 86, 19 SW 903; Blackwell v. State, 29 Tex. A. 194, 15 SW 597. Utah.-Peo. v. Coughlin, 13 Utah 58, 44 P 94. Vt.-State v. Eastwood, 73 Vt. 205, V. Wash.-State MacLeod, 78 Wash. 175, 138 P 648; State v. Craemer, 12 Wash. 217, 40 P 944 [writ of error den 164 U. S. 704 mem, 17 SCt 993, 41 L. ed. 1183]; Blanton v. State, 1 Wash. 265, 24 P 439. Eng.-Rex v. Voke, R., & R. 395. [a] Condition of body of another victim.-On a trial for the murder of one of two traveling companions whose bodies were found about a mile apart, evidence of the condition in which the body of the other was found is admissible, there being proof that both were murdered in the same onset. Fernandez v. State, 4 Tex. A. 419. [b] Identification of body of an other victim.-Where another dead body was found several miles from that of deceased, evidence tending to identify it as that of a traveling companion of said deceased who was missing was competent as tending to show the motive, knowledge, and intent of defendant, and as a circumstance in the res gestæ. Morris v. State, 30 Tex. A. 95, 16 SW 757. 33. Peo. v. Foley, 64 Mich. 148, 31 NW 94. 34. Cal-Peo. v. Rogers, 71 Cal. 565, 12 P 679. Ga. Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243, 80 SE 1016. Ky-O'Brien v. Com., 115 Ky. 608, 74 SW 666, 24 KyL 2511; Whitney V Minn. State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. Com., 74 SW 257, 24 KyL 2524; Smart v. Com., 11 SW 431, 10 KyL Mo.-State v. Tatman, 264 Mo. 357, 1035. N. D-State v. Hazlet, 16 N. D. 426, 65, 41 NW 459. 113 NW 374. 37 38 malice,35 motive,36 or a particular intent. Where the two offenses are so inseparably connected that the one charged cannot be proved without also proving the other, evidence of the other is admissible.3 It may be shown that the motive actuating accused in the commission of the crime charged was the concealment of another offense by the destruction of one who had knowledge of such offense, or who had manifested a disposition to acquire information as to the perpetrators thereof.39 Evidence of the pendency of an indictment against defendant for another crime in which deceased was the prosecutor 40 Mo.-State v. Lewis, 181 Mo. 235,597, 85 SW 278; 79 SW 671. Nebr.-Neal v. State, 32 Nebr. 120, 49 NW 174. N. Y.-Pierson v. Peo., 79 N. Y. 424, 35 AmR 524. Pa. Goersen v. Com., 99 Pa. 388; Brown v. Com., 76 Pa. 319. S. C.-State v. Davis, 88 S. C. 204, 70 SE 417; State v. Cannon, 52 S. C. 452, 30 SE 589. Tenn.-Logston v. State, 3 Heisk. 414. Tex.-Leeper v. State, 29 Tex. A. 63. 14 SW 398 [aff 139 U. S. 462, 35 L. ed. 225, 11 SCt 577]. Va. Nicholas v. Com., 91 Va. 741, 31 SE 364. Eng.-Rex v. Clewes, 4 C. & P. 221, 19 ECL 485. [a] Another murder committed by same person.-Neal v. State, 32 Nebr. 120, 49 NW 174; Brown v. Com., 76 Pa. 319. [b] Previous attempts of defendant to kill deceased may be shown. Nicholas v. Com., 91 Va. 741, 31 SE 364. 35. Lampkin v. State, 145 Ga. 40, 88 SE 563. 36. U. S.-Moore v. U. S., 150 U. S. 57, 14 SCt 26, 37 L. ed. 996. Cal.-Peo. V. Argentos, 156 Cal. 720, 106 P 65; Peo. v. Wilson, 117 Cal. 688, 49 P 1054; Peo. v. Walters, 98 Cal. 138, 32 P 864; Peo. v. Pool, 27 Cal. 572. Ga-Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243, 80 SE 1016; Robinson v. State, 114 Ga. 56, 39 SE 862. Il-Farris v. Peo., 129 Ill. 521, 21 NE 821, 16 AmSR 283, 4 LRA 582. Iowa.-State v. Healey, 105 Iowa 162, 74 NW 916. Kan.-State v. Reed, 53 Kan. 767, 37 P 174, 42 AmSR 322. Ky-Wellington v. Com., 158 Ky. 161, 164 SW 333; Greenwell v. Com., 125 Ky. 192, 100 SW 852, 30 KyL 1282: Carpenter v. Com., 92 SW 553, 29 KyL 100; Denham v. Com., 119 Ky. 508, 84 SW 538, 27 KyL 171; Bess v. Com., 116 Ky. 927, 77 SW 349, 25 KyL 1091; Whitney v. Com., 75 SW 257, 24 KyL 2524; O'Brien v. Com., 115 Ky. 608, 74 SW 666, 24 KyL 2511. La-State v. McKowen, 126 La. 1075, 53 S 353. Miss. Cotton v. State, 17 S 372. Mo.-State v. Whitley, 183 SW 317: State v. Lewis, 181 Mo. 235, 79 SW 671. N. Y.-Peo. v. Morse, 196 N. Y. 306, 89 NE 816; Peo. v. Governale, 193 N. Y. 581, 86 NE 554; Peo. v. Molineaux, 168 N. Y. 264, 61 NE 286, 62 LRA 193; Peo. v. Harris, 136 N. Y. 423, 32 NE 65; Stout v. Peo., 4 Park. Cr. 71; Peo. v. Wood, 3 Park. Cr. 681. N. C.-State v. Brantley, 84 N. C. 766. Or.-State v. Finch, 54 Or. 482, 103 P 505. Pa.-Com. v. Birriolo, 197 Pa. 371, 47 A 355; Goersen v. Com., 106 Pa. 477, 51 AmR 534, 99 Pa. 388; Shaffner v. Com., 72 Pa. 60, 13 AmR 649; Com. v. Ferrigan, 44 Pa. 386. S. C.-State v. Du Rant, 87 S. C. 532, 70 SE 306. V. State, Tenn.-Donaldson Tenn. Cas. 427. [16 C. J.-39] 2 Tex.-Brittain v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. or a witness 41 is admissible on the question of motive, where it appears that defendant knew such fact;42 but while in such case it is proper to introduce in evidence the affidavit, complaint, indictment, or information,43 it is not competent to introduce evidence of defendant's guilt or innocence of such other crime.14 Also, where accused had a motive for killing a witness in the present case, namely, to prevent his own testimony from being contradicted, evidence of an assault on the witness is admissible.45 The fact that the state introduces in evidence a confession of accused, or establishes Pryor v. State, 40 | 142. Tex. Cr. 643, 51 SW 375; Somerville v. State, 6 Tex. A. 433. Utah.-State V. Hayes, 14 Utah 118, 46 P 752. Va.-O'Boyle v. Com., 100 Va. 785, 40 SE 121. 37. Cal.-Peo. v. Olsen, 80 Cal. 122, 22 P 125. Colo.-Hillen v. Peo., 59 Colo. 280, 149 P 250. Fla.-West v. State, 42 Fla. 244, 28 S 430. Ida.-State v. McGann, 8 Ida. 40, 66 P 823. Ill.-Peo. v. Hagenow, 236 Ill. 514, 86 NE 370; Clark v. Peo., 224 Ill. 554, 79 NE 941. La.-State v. Thibodeaux, 48 La. Ann. 600, 19 S 680. Mich.-Peo. v. Ascher, 126 Mich. 637, 86 NW 140. Minn.-State v. Newell, 134 Minn. 384, 159 NW 829. Mo.-State v. Sherman, 264 Mo. 374, 175 SW 73; State v. Hyde, 234 Mo. 200, 136 SW 316, AnnCas1912D 191. Nebr. Nebr.-Clark V. State, 79 473, 482, 113 NW 211, 804. N. Y.-Peo. v. Morse, 196 N. Y. 306, 89 NE 816. N. C.-State v. Register, 133 N. C. 746, 46 SE 21. Pa.-Com. v. Birriolo, 197 Pa. 371, 47 A 355. Tex.-Cortez v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. 375, 66 SW 453. Utah. State v. Hayes, 14 Utah 118, 46 P 752. Va.-O'Boyle v. Com., 100 Va. 785, 40 SE 121. Wis. Dietz v. State, 149 Wis. 462, 136 NW 166, AnnCas1913C 732. 38. Peo. v. McClure, 148 Cal. 418, 83 P 437; Burnett v. Com., 172 Ky. 398, 189 SW 460; State v. Anderson, 53 Or. 479, 101 P 198. 39. U. S.-Moore v. U. S., 150 U. S. 57, 14 SCt 26, 37 L. ed. 996. Ala. Miller v. State, 130 Ala. 1, 30 S 379. Ark.-Dunn v. State, 2 Ark. 229, 35 AmD 54. Cal.-Peo. v. Wilson, 117 Cal. 688, 49 P 1054. Ga. Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243, 80 SE 1016; Williams v. State, 69 Ga. 11. Ind. Sage v. State, 127 Ind. 15, 26 NE 667. Iowa.-State v. Seymour, 94 Iowa 699, 63 NW 661; State v. Kline, 54 Iowa 183, 6 NW 184. Ky. May v. Com., 153 Ky. 141, 154 SW 1074; Jackson v. Com., 100 Ky. 239, 38 SW 422, 1091 18 KyL 795, 66 AmSR 336; Roberts v. Com., 8 SW 270, 10 KyL 433. La. State v. Fontenot, 48 La. Ann. 305, 19 S 111. Mich.-Peo. v. Parmelee, 112 Mich. 291, 70 NW 577. Mo.-State v. Miller, 156 Mo. 76, 56 SW 907. N. H.-State v. Palmer, 65 N. H. 216, 20 A 6. N. M.-Terr. v. McGinnis, 10 N. M. 269, 61 P 208. N. Y.-Peo. v. Harris, 136 N. Y. 423, 33 NE 65; Pontius v. Peo., 82 N. Y. 339 [aff 21 Hun 328]. Pa.-McConkey v. Com., 101 Pa. 416. S. C.-State v. Posey, 35 S. C. L. 46 Tex.-Vines v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 355, 148 SW 727; Goodman v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 388, 83 SW 196; Smith v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 53, 68 SW 267; Fletcher v. State, (Cr.) 68 SW 173; Honeycutt v. State, (Cr.) 63 SW 639; Hamblin v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 135, 50 SW 1019, 51 SW 1111; Blackwell v. State, 29 Tex. A. 194, 15 SW 597. Eng.-Rex v. Clewes, 4 C. & P. 221, 19 ECL 485. 25. 40. Ala.-Childs v. State, 55 Ala. Fla.-Smith v. State, 48 Fla. 307, 37 S 573. Ga.-Butler v. State, 91 Ga. 161, 16 SE 984; Turner v. State, 70 Ga. 765. Ky.-Martin v. Com., 93 Ky. 189, 19 SW 580, 14 KyL 95. Miss.-Gillum 547. v. State, 62 Miss. Mont.-State v. Geddes, 22 Mont. 68, 55 P 919. N. H.-State v. Palmer, 65 N. H. 216, 20 A 6. Tex.-Robbins v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. 367, 166 SW 528; Renfro v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. 393, 56 SW 1013; Kunde v. State, 22 Tex. A. 65, 3 SW 325; Coward v. State, 6 Tex. A. 59. 41. Hodge v. State, 97 Ala. 37, 12 S 164, 38 AmSR 145; Carden v. State, 84 Ala. 417, 4 S 823; Kirk v. State, 73 Ga. 620; Mask v. State, 32 Miss. 405; Davis v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 56 SW 53; Easterwood v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. 400, 31 SW 294; Johnson v. State, 29 Tex. A. 150, 15 SW 647. 42. Stokes v. Peo., 53 N. Y. 164, 13 AmR 492; Terry v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. 264, 76 SW 928; Attaway v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 395, 55 SW 45; Barkman v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 105, 52 SW 73. [a] Opinion of witness.—(1) It is error, in a prosecution for an assault with intent to kill, to permit a witness to testify that defendant knew, at the time of the difficulty, that the person assaulted had been to obtain a warrant for his arrest. Bailey v. State, 107 Ala. 151, 18 S 234. (2) It is also error to allow the prosecuting witness, in answer to the question why defendant shot him, to testify that he laid it to his having been a witness in a horse case, such being a conclusion of the witness and there being nothing in the evidence to connect defendant with any horse case. Plew v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 35 SW 366. 43. Ala. Carden v. State, 84 Ala. 417, 4 S 823. Ga.-Kirk v. State, 73 Ga. 620; Turner v. State, 70 Ga. 765. Ky.-Martin v. Com., 93 Ky. 189, 19 SW 580. 14 KyL 95. Miss.-Gillum v. State, 62 Miss. 547. Mont.-State v. Geddes, 22 Mont. 68, 55 P 919. Tex.-Renfro v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. 393, 56 SW 1013; Johnson v. State, 29 Tex. A. 150, 15 SW 647; Kunde v. State, 22 Tex. A. 65, 3 SW 325. 44. Carden v. State, 84 Ala. 417, 4 S 823; Williams v. State, 69 Ga. 11; Martin v. Com., 93 Ky. 189, 19 SW 580, 14 KyL 95; Com. v. Andrews, 234 Pa. 597, 83 A 412. 45. State v. Duncan, 88 S. C. 217, 70 SE 402. 46. Hillen v. Peo., 59 Colo. 280, 149 P 250. H the killing by the testimony of eyewitnesses,47 does not render inadmissible evidence of robberies and attempted robberies for the purpose of showing that the homicide was committed in perpetrating robbery. Remoteness. Even where acts constituting other offenses might come within some of the exceptions to the rule excluding evidence of other crimes, they must not be too remote;48 but where the acts were repeated year after year down to a comparatively recent period, and the entire chain of events indicates a felonious intent, an objection of remoteness in point of time is without weight.49 [§ 1166] 25. Illegally Practicing Medicine. The authorities on the admissibility of evidence of other offenses in prosecutions for illegally practicing medicine are not harmonious. In a prosecution for practicing medicine without authority or license as required by law, evidence that defendant had treated, or prescribed for, persons other than the one specified in the indictment or information is admissible in some jurisdictions,50 but not in others;51 and evidence of like acts on dates other than those charged or relied on is admissible to show intent 52 and the plan, scheme, and course of business of defendant,53 except where accused has been tried for those acts and acquitted.54 Also, in such a prosecution evidence that defendant advertised as a medical practitioner is admissible to prove the offense charged, although it also shows the commission of a separate offense.5 In a prosecution of a physician for illegally prescribing whisky, evidence that he gave like prescriptions to other persons is admissible to show intent;5 56 and the same rule applies in a prosecution of a physician for unlawfully prescribing cocaine,57 even though he may have been tried and acquitted for violating the law as to one or more of such other transactions.58 Each act by which one physician personates another constitutes a separate crime, and where there is no charge that defendant habitually practiced medicine under an 47. Hillen v. Peo., 59 Colo. 280, 149 P 250. 55 48. Bird v. U. S., 180 U. S. 356, 21 SCt 403, 45 L. ed. 570. 49. Dietz v. State, 149 Wis. 462, 136 NW 166, AnnCas1913C 732. 50. Singh v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. 156, 146 SW 891; Germany v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 276, 137 SW 130, AnnCas 1913C 477. 51. Meyer v. State, 59 N. J. L. 310, 36 A 483. 52. Com. V. Lindsey, 223 Mass. 392, 111 NE 869. 53. Com. v. Lindsey, 223 Mass. 392, 111 NE 869. 54. State v. Van Buren, 86 S. C. 297, 68 SE 568. 55. State v. Blumenthal, 141 Mo. A. 502, 125 SW 1188. 56. Weatherford V. State, (Tex. Cr.) 103 SW 632. 57. Stanley v. State, 9 Ga. A. 141, 70 SE 894. 58. Lee v. State, 8 Ga. A. 413, 69 SE 310. 59. Peo. v. Dudenhausen, 130 App. Div. 760, 115 NYS 374 [aff 195 N. Y. 554 mem, 88 NE 1127 mem]. 60. Cal.-Peo. v. Stratton, 141 Cal. 604, 75 P 166; Peo. v. Patterson, 102 Cal. 239, 36 P 436. assumed name, or at any time except that specified, evidence that accused, at other times and places and under such false name, advised or treated other persons is inadmissible.59 [§ 1167] 26. Incest. Prior acts. When incest is charged, prior acts of sexual intercourse between the same parties, or previous familiarities not amounting to actual intercourse, are admissible, not as affording proof of a substantive offense in themselves, but as corroborating other evidence of the act charged, and as tending to show the relations existing between the parties as bearing upon the probability of the commission of the crime charged. And this rule is applicable to prior acts. of intercourse, although a prosecution therefor has been barred by the statute of limitations.61 60 Subsequent acts. In some jurisdictions acts of familiarity or intercourse subsequent to the time of the alleged offense are inadmissible;62 but in others. the rule is laid down that acts of improper familiarity or illicit intimacy or relations between the parties, subsequent, as well as prior to, the act charged, are admissible as corroborative evidence when they tend to show a continuous illicit relationship.63 In the latter class of jurisdictions, however, such acts are not admissible as independent substantive offenses;64 and evidence of them is admissible only after the prosecution has selected some particular acts of a certain date, and has elected to rely upon proof of such acts for a conviction.65 With another person. In a prosecution for incest with one daughter, testimony of another daughter as to accused's sexual relations with her is not admissible.66 [1168] 27. Keeping Disorderly House. In a prosecution for the keeping, or permitting the keeping, of a bawdy or disorderly house, evidence as to the similar character and use of other houses owned or kept by accused is admissible to show guilty knowledge;67 and, where otherwise relevant and pertinent, evidence is not to be excluded on the objection | Iowa 391, 70 NW 613. Ky.-Smith v. Com., 109 Ky. 685, 60 SW 531, 22 KyL 1349; Mathis v. Com., 13 SW 360, 11 KyL 882. La-State v. De Hart, 109 La. 570, 33 S 605. Mich.-Peo. v. Skutt, 96 Mich. 449, 56 NW 11; Peo. v. Cease, 80 Mich. 576, 45 NW 585; Peo. v. Jenness, 5 Mich. 305. Minn.-State v. Wallen, 123 Minn. 128, 143 NW 119. Nebr.-Smothers v. State, 81 Nebr. 426, 116 NW 152. N. C.-State v. Broadway, 157 N. C. 598, 72 SE 987; State v. Pippin, 88 N. C. 646; State v. Kemp, 87 Ñ. C. 538. Pa.-Com. v. Bell, 166 Pa. 405, 31 A 123. S. C.-State v. Reynolds, 48 S. C. 384, 26 SE 679. S. D.-State v. De Masters, 15 S. D. 581, 90 NW 852. course are inadmissible). Contra Pridemore v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. 563, 129 SW 1112, 29 LRANS 858; Skidmore v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. 497, 123 SW 1129, 26 LRANS 466 [overr Barrett v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 182, 115 SW 1187]. 61. Ark.-Adams v. State, 78 Ark. 16, 92 SW 1123. Ga.-Taylor v. State, 110 Ga. 150, 35 SE 161. Ill.-Peo. v. Turner, 260 Ill. 84, 102 NE 1036, AnnCas1914D 144. N. C.-State v. Pippin, 88 N. C. 646. Pa. Com. v. Bell, 166 Pa. 405, 31 A 123. 62. Lovell v. State, 12 Ind. 18: State v. De Masters, 15 S. D. 581, 90 NW 852; Gross v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. 176, 135 SW 373, 33 LRANS 477; Pridemore v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. 563. 129 SW 1112, 29 LRANS 858; Clifton v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. 18, 79 SW 824, 108 AmSR 983 [disappr Burnett v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 86, 22 SW 47]. 63. Peo. v. Kaller, 142 Cal. 621, 76 P 500; Mathis v. Com., 13 SW 360, 11 KyL 882; State v. Reineke, 89 Oh. St. 390, 106 NE 52, LRA1915A 138. 64. Peo. v. Koller, 142 Cal. 621, 76 P 500. 65. Peo. v. Koller, 142 Cal. 621, 76 P 500. Tex.-Vickers v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. 12, 169 SW 669; Cowser v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 265, 157 SW 758, AnnCas 1916B 598; Burnett v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 86, 22 SW 47. But compare Gillespie v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 530, 531, 93 SW 556 (where the court said: "Nor do we believe that it was admissible for the State to prove former transactions of incestuous intercourse between prosecutrix and appellant. Certainly not to prove in- 67. Guthrie v. State, (Tex. Cr.) stances of this sort more than 10 189 SW 256; Golden v. State, 72 Tex. years old"); Wiggins v. State, 47 Cr. 19, 160 SW 957. But see Parks Tex. Cr. 538, 84 SW 821 (holding v. State, 59 N. J. L. 573, 36 A 935 that, while acts of mere familiarity (holding that, where no relation of are admissible, other acts of inter- intercommunication or management Ga.-Lipham v. State, 125 Ga. 52, 53 SE 817, 114 AmSR 181, 5 AnnCas 66; Taylor v. State, 110 Ga. 150, 35 SE 161. Ind.-Lefforge v. State, 129 Ind. 551, 29 NE 34; State v. Markins, 95 Ind. 464, 48 AmR 733. Iowa.-State v. Heft, 155 Iowa 21, 134 NW 950; State V. Hurd, 101 66. Peo. v. Letoile, 31 Cal. A. 166, 159 P 1057. that it shows a violation of the liquor laws;68 but the state may not go further and prove that the town where the offense was committed was a "no-license town. ''69 Evidence that accused pleaded guilty to disturbing the peace is not admissible in the absence of proof of the connection of such offense with the offense charged;70 and, if admissible at all, a plea of guilty by accused to a charge of vagrancy can be admitted only after the state has shown under what section of the vagrancy statute accused had been charged and had pleaded guilty.71 72 [ 1169] 28. Kidnapping." On a trial for kidnapping, evidence of another kidnapping by accused, or by another person,7 ,74 is not admissible; nor is evidence that accused had dynamite unlawfully in his possession;75 neither is independent proof of the crime of rape admissible.76 [§ 1170] 29. Larceny. It is not permissible to show that defendant had committed other crimes is shown or alleged, it is error to allow questions concerning the trial of another case, in another state, against another person, where the character of a house in that state owned by defendant is in question). 68. State v. Mulhollen, 173 Iowa 242, 155 NW 252; Peo. v. Jones, 129 App. Div. 772, 113 NYS 1097 [aff 195 N. Y. 547 mem, 88 NE 1127 mem]. 69. Peo. v. Jones, 191 N. Y. 291, 84 NE 61 [rev 122 App. Div. 895 mem, 106 NYS 1140 mem]. 70. Goosby v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 189 SW 143. 71. Bowman v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. 194, 164 SW 846. 72. Evidence of other criminal acts in prosecutions for abduction see Abduction § 35. 73. State v. Holland, 120 La. 429, 45 S 380, 14 AnnCas 692. [a] Reason for rule.-Evidence of another kidnapping of the same person by accused is not admissible to prove motive or intent, but falls within the general rule excluding evidence of other offenses, where ur der the statute defining the offense, neither the motive nor the intent of the kidnapper is material. State v. Holland, 120 La. 429, 45 S 380, 14 AnnCas 692. 74. Peo. v. Pettanza, 207 N. Y. 560, 101 NE 428 [rev 145 App. Div. 944 mem, 130 NYS 1124 mem]. 75. Peo. v. Pettanza, 207 N. Y. 560, 101 NE 428 [rev 145 App. Div. 944 mem, 130 NYS 1124 mem]. 76. Peo. v. Harrison, 261 Ill. 517, 104 NE 259. 77. D. C.-Ryan v. U. S., 26 App. 74, 6 AnnCas 633. Ill-Peo. v. Burger, 259 Ill. 284, 102 NE 751; Bishop v. Peo., 194 III. 365, 62 NE 785; Gillespie v. Peo., 176 Ill. 238, 52 NE 250. Ind. Shears v. State, 147 Ind. 51, 46 NE 331; Smith v. State, 10 Ind. 106. Ind. T.-Clampitt v. U. S., 6 Ind. T. 92, 89 SW 666, 10 AnnCas 1087. Iowa.-State v. Clark, 160 Iowa 138, 140 NW 821; State v. Wackernagel, 118 Iowa 12, 91 NW 761. N. Y.-Peo. v. Geyer, 196 N. Y. 364, 90 NE 48 [rev 132 App. Div. 790, 117 NYS 662]; Peo. v. Friedman, 149 App. Div. 873, 134 NYS 153; Peo. v. Cohen, 148 App. Div. 205, 133 NYS 103 [app dism 211 N. Y. 607 mem, 105 NE 1092 mem]; Peo. v. Sekeson, 111 App. Div. 490, 97 NYS 917, 18 NYAnnCas 199, 20 N. Y. Cr. 24. Or-State v. O'Donnell, 36 Or. 222, 61 P 892. as tending to show him guilty of the larceny for Possession of other stolen property. Possession may be shown of other goods stolen at the same time as those which defendant is accused of stealCr. 420, 140 SW 1102; Parker v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. 526, 67 SW 121. SW 972; Scott v. State, (Cr.) 68 SW 680; Mercer v. State, (Cr.) 66 SW 555; Lee v. State, (Cr.) 65 SW 540; McIver V. State, (Cr.) 60 SW 50; Walton v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 454, 55 SW 566; James v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 190, 49 SW 401; Unsell v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. 330, 45 SW 1022; Spillman v. State, (Cr.) 44 SW 150; Isham v. State, (Cr.) 41 SW 622; Buck V. State, (Cr.) 38 SW 772. Wash-State v. Gottfreedson, 24 Wash. 398, 64 P 523. Wis.-Topolewski V. State, 130 Wis. 244, 109 NW 1037, 118 AmSR 1019, 7 LRANS 756, 10 AnnCas 627. 78. Peo. v. Cline, 83 Cal. 374, 23 P 391; McClure v. Com., 81 Ky. 448; Peo. v. Huff, 173 Mich. 620, 139 NW 1033; Buck v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 83 SW 390. 79. Cal.-Peo. v. Hartman, 62 Cal. 562. 82. Cal.-Peo. v. Taylor, 6 Cal. Unrep. Cas. 942, 69 P 292; Peo. v. Cahill, 11 Cal. A. 685, 106 P 115. Ga.-Mattox v. State, 115 Ga. 212, 41 SE 709. Ind. T.-Young v. U. S., 7 Ind. T. 78, 103 SW 771. N. Y.-Haskins v. Peo., 16 N. Y. 344. Tex.-Roman v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. 515, 142 SW 912; Bonners v. State, (Cr.) 35 SW 650; Holmes v. State, 20 Tex. A. 509. Utah.-State v. Gillies, 40 Utah 541, 123 P 93. Eng.-Rex v. Rooney, 7 C. & P. 517, 32 ECL 736. 83. Ark.-Autrey V. State, 113 Ark. 347, 168 SW 556; Ross v. State, 92 Ark. 481, 123 SW 756; Johnson v. State, 75 Ark. 427, 88 SW 905. Cal.-Peo. v., Fehrenbach, 102 Cal. Mich.-Peo. v. Lapidus, 167 Mich. 53, 132 NW 470; Peo. v. Lyons, 49394, 36 P 678; Peo, v. Cunningham, 66 Mich. 78, 13 NW 365. Miss. Slaydon v. State, 102 Miss. 101, 58 S 977. Mo.-State v. Reavis, 71 Mo. 419; State v. Daubert, 42 Mo. 242. N. Y.-Peo. v. Morral, 141 App. Div. 153, 125 NYS 976; Peo. v. Justices Ct. Spec. Sess., 10 Hun 158. N. C.-State v. Vinson, 63 N. C. 335. Or.-State v. O'Donnell, 36 Or. 222, 61 P 892. S. D.-State v. Fulwider, 28 S. D. 622, 134 NW 807. Tex.-Gilbraith v. State, 41 Tex. 567; Nunn v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 86, 131 SW 320; Gardner v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 394, 117 SW 140; Tijerina v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. 182, 74 SW 913; McIver v. State, (Cr.) 60 SW 50; Grant v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. 273, 58 SW 1026; Wilson v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 115, 51 SW 916; Spillman v. State, (Cr.) 44 SW 150; Isham v. State, (Cr.) 41 SW 622; Kelley v. State, 18 Tex. A. 262. Vt.-State v. Kelley, 65 Vt. 531, 27 A 203, 36 AmSR 884. 80. Green v. Com., 24 SW 623, 15 KyL 536; Hammock v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 471, 93 SW 549. 81. Ala. Lowe v. State, 134 Ala. 154, 32 S 273. Ark. Setzer v. State, 110 Ark. 226, 161 SW 190. Iowa.-State v. Moran, 131 Iowa 645, 109 NW 187. N. Y.-Peo. v. Neff, 191 N. Y. 210, 83 NE 970 [aff 122 App. Div. 135, 106 NYS 747]; Peo. v. Smith, 172 App Div. 826, 159 NYS 1073 [aff 219 N. Y. 222, 114 NE 50]. Tex-Clark v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. 246, 128 SW 131, 29 LRANS 323: Robinson v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 42, 114 SW 811; Alford v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 621, 108 SW 364; Reagan v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 443, 93 SW 733; Bryan v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 200, 91 SW 581: Tex.-Lusport v. State, (Cr.) 190 Counts v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. 629, 89 SW 151; Ellington v. State, 63 Tex. Or.-State v. McLennan, 82 Or. 621, 162 P 838; State v. Rea, 46 Or. 620, 81 P 822. Pa. Com. v. Levinson, 34 Pa. Super. 286. Cal. 668, 4 P 1144, 6 P 700, 846; Peo. v. Rial, 23 Cal. A. 713, 139 P 661; Peo. v. Arnold, 17 Cal. A. 68, 118 P 729. Mich.-Peo. v. Nagle, 137 Mich. 88, 100 NW 273. Minn. State v. Southall, 77 Minn. 296, 79 NW 1007. Mo.-State v. Gaede, 186 SW 1009; State v. Phillips, 160 Mo. 503, 60 SW 1050. N. M.-Terr. v. West, 14 N. M. 546, 99 P 343; Terr. v. Caldwell, 14 N. M. 535, 98 P 167. N. Y.-Peo. v. Lovejoy, 37 App. Div. 52, 55 NYS 543, 13 N. Y. Cr. 411; Peo. v. Hughes, 91 Hun 354, 36 NYS 493; Peo. v. Luke, 9 NYSt 638. N. C.-State v. White, 89 N. C. 462. Okl.-Beberstein v. Terr., 8 Okl. 467, 58 P 641. Or.-State v. Savage, 36 Or. 191, 60 P 610, 61 P 1128. S. D.-State v. Fulwider, 28 S. D. 622, 134 NW 807. Tex.-Bailey v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. 474, 155 SW 536; Melton v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. 362, 140 SW 230; Reese v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 34, 68 SW 283; Brown v. State, (Cr.) 59 SW 1118; Robinson v. State, (Cr.) 48 SW 176. Wash.-State v. Gunn, 85 Wash. 121, 147 P 401. 84. Peo. v. Burns, 16 Cal. A. 416, 118 P 454; Peo. v. Cahill, 11 Cal. A. 685, 106 P 115; Beberstein v. Terr., 8 Okl. 467, 58 P 641; Bailey v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. 474, 155 SW 536. 85. State V. Southall, 77 Minn. 296, 79 NW 1007; Peo. v. Katz, 209 N. Y. 311, 103 NE 305, AnnCas1915 A 501 [aff 154 App. Div. 44, 139 NYS 137]; State v. Gillies, 40 Utah 541, 123 P 93, 43 LRANS 776. 86. State v. Othick, (Mo.) 184 SW 106; Melton v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. 362, 140 SW 230; Holt v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. 282, 45 SW 1016, 46 SW 829. 87 92 89 91 90 ing.s This is true even if the goods belonged to another owner, if they were all taken at the same time.88 Such evidence may be relevant to prove identity, to show guilty knowledge, to establish the intent, to rebut defendant's explanation of his possession of the property charged to have been stolen," or as one of the circumstances of finding the property.93 Ordinarily such evidence is not admissible without evidence that the other goods were stolen, and that they were taken at the same time;94 but evidence of the finding of goods stolen at a different time is admissible where the two felonies were connected and form part of a series of transactions." 95 Where the prosecution is for cattle theft, evidence of the finding in defendant's possession of the hides of animals other than those alleged to have been stolen is admissible in some circumstances,96 but not in others.97 Larceny by bailee. On a trial for larceny of money by a bailee, evidence that he obtained other sums of money in like manner and at about the same time, and of the disposition he made thereof, may be received as tending to show his guilty knowledge 98 and intent.99 In such a prosecution, however, the general rule excluding evidence of other offenses will be adhered to unless there are strong reasons for a departure therefrom.1 Pocket picking. In In a prosecution for pocket picking on a street car, evidence that shortly prior to the offense defendant was seen on another car near the place of the crime, shoving himself be87. Ala.-Grant v. State, 55 Ala. 96. Watters v. 201. 94 SW 1038. Cal.-Peo. v. Nunley, 142 Cal. 441, 76 P 45; Peo. v. Ross, 65 Cal. 104, 3 P 491. Fla. Barnes v. State, 46 Fla. 96, 35 S 227. Mo.-State v. Flynn, 124 Mo. 480, 27 SW 1105. N. C.-State v. Weaver, 104 N. C. 758, 10 SE 486. Okl.-Flohr v. Terr., 14 Okl. 477, 78 P 565; Howard v. State, 9 Okl. Cr. 337, 131 P 1100. Tex.-Lynne v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. 375, 111 SW 729; Speights v. State, 1 Tex. A. 551. 88. Peo. v. Robles, 34 Cal. 591; State v. Ditton, 48 Iowa 677. 89. Yarborough v. State, 41 Ala. 405: Johnson v. State, 148 Ind. 522, 47 NE 926; Parker v. U. S., 1 Ind. T. 592, 43 SW 858; Tyler v. State, 13 Tex. A. 205. 90. Martin v. State, 10 Ga. A. 795, 74 SE 304. 91. Johnson v. State, 148 Ind. 522, 47 NE 926; State v. Moore, 101 Mo. 316, 14 SW 182; State v. Wolff, 15 Mo. 168; Passagoli v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 38 SW 200. 92. Davis v. State, 7 Okl. Cr. 322, 123 P 560; Petty v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. 586, 129 SW 615; Penrice v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 105 SW 797; Nixon v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 205, 20 SW 364. 93. Peo. v. Nicolosi, 4 Cal. Unrep. Cas. 341, 34 P 824; State v. Brown, 100 Iowa 50, 69 NW 277: State v. Schaffer, 70 Iowa 371, 30 NW 639. 94. Ala.-Tinney v. State, 111 Ala. 74, 20 S 597. Ind. T.-Oxier v. U, S., 1 Ind. T. 85. 38 SW 331. Mo.-State v. Castor, 93 Mo. 242, 5 SW 906. N. Y.-Boland v. Peo., 19 Hun 80. Tex.-McKnight v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 470, 156 SW 1188; Neeley v. State, 27 Tex. A. 315, 11 SW 376; Webb. v. State, 8 Tex. A. 115. To same effect Reg. v. Oddy, 5 Cox C. C. 210. 95. Com. V. Riggs, 14 Gray (Mass.) 376, 77 AmD 333. tween two persons, is admissible to show defendant's presence in the vicinity, and is not objectionable as tending to show another offense.2 [§ 1171] 30. Lewdness. In a prosecution for lewdness, or lewdness with a child, prior acts of lasciviousness or of familiarity between the parties may be proved to illustrate and characterize the acts and conduct of the parties complained of as constituting the particular offense charged,3 if not too remote in point of time to afford a reasonable inference of guilt, and evidence of subsequent intimacy tending to show a continued illicit relation between the parties is admissible. Such evidence is admissible, however, only when offered in connection with, or subsequently to, the introduction of evidence tending to prove the offense charged. Other lascivious acts may be admitted to show intent, except where defendant admits in open court, and before the jury, that, if the acts charged were done, they were designedly done.s At another place. Where lewd acts in a dwelling house are charged in the indictment, evidence of lewd acts elsewhere on the premises has a bearing on the relations between the parties and is admissible." 10 [§ 1172] 31. Libel and Slander. While, in a prosecution for slander of a female by imputing a want of chastity, evidence of other similar slanderous utterances by accused concerning the prose cuting witness is admissible to show the intent 1o and motive 11 of accused in uttering the words charged, State, (Tex. Cr.) | defendant's lascivious disposition. Peo. v. Love, 29 Cal. A. 521, 157 P [a] Buried in field.-Where the 9. case depends upon circumstantial 4. Stewart v. State, 64 Miss. 626, evidence, it is permissible to show 2 S 73. that hides of other animals were found buried or concealed in defendant's field. Watters v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 94 SW 1038. 97. State v. Bowen, 43 Utah 111, 134 P 623. [a] Thus, where defendant is a ranchman and cattleman, the finding of hides in his barn or corral is itself not an unusual or suspicious circumstance, and evidence of the finding of hides of animals other than those stolen is not admissible in the absence of other evidence showing that the animals from which they were taken were stolen, or showing some relation or connection between defendant's possession and the larceny charged. State v. Bowen, 43 Utah 111, 134 P 623. 98. Cohoe v. State, 82 Nebr. 744, 118 NW 1088. 99. Cohoe v. State, 82 Nebr. 744, 118 NW 1088. 1. Davis v. State, 54 Nebr. 177, 74 NW 599. 2. State v. Gordon, 253 Mo. 510, 161 SW 721. 3. Ala-Hill v. State, 137 Ala. 66, 34 S 406; Wright v. State, 108 Ala. 60, 18 S 941; Alsabrooks v. State, 52 Ala. 24: Lawson v. State, 20 Ala. 65, 56 AmD 182. Cal.-Peo. v. Love, 29 Cal. A. 521, 157 P 9. 145 Fla.-Brevaldo v. State, 21 Fla. 789. Nebr.-State v. Way, 5 Nebr. 283. 5. Ala.-Hill v. State, 137 Ala. 66, 34 S 406; Brown v. State, 108 Ala. 18, 18 S 811; Alsabrooks v. State, 52 Ala. 24. Ill. Crane v. Peo., 168 Ill. 395, 48 NE 54 [aff 65 Ill. A. 492]. Miss.-Stewart v. State, 64 Miss. 626, 2 S 73. Nebr.-State v. Way, 5 Nebr. 283. Tenn. Mynatt v. State, 8 Lea 47; Cole v. State, 6 Baxt. 239. 6. Alsabrooks v. State, 52 Ala. 24; Peo. v. Harlan, 29 Cal. A. 600, 156 P 980; Crane v. Peo., 168 Ill. 395, 48 NE 54 [aff 65 Ill. A. 492]; State v. Way, 5 Nebr. 283. 7. Peo. v. Harrison, 14 Cal. A. 545, 112 P 733. 8. State v. Vance, 119 Iowa 685, 94 NW 204. 9. Cox v. Com., 140 Ky. 65, 130 SW 819. [a] Reason for rule.-"The real question in the case was: Did appellants maintain improper relations with each other in the dwelling house? What they did elsewhere on the premises had a direct bearing upon those relations. The fact that they were guilty of lewd acts in the barn, orchard and yard. tended strongly to show that they were guilty of the same acts when in the privacy of the dwelling house. It is not a case where evidence of one crime is admitted to show another; it is a case of where a series of lewd acts tending to show that improper relations existed between the parties is admitted as evidence of the continuation of those relations when not in the presence of witnesses. Upon this theory the evidence_was clearly admissible." Cox v. Com., 140 Ky. 65, 67, 130 SW 819. [a] Sodomy.-In a prosecution for 10. Curl v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. 431. lewd and lascivious conduct with a 145 SW 602; Adams v. State, 62 Tex. child, proof of prior lascivious acts, Cr. 426, 138 SW 117; Collins v. State, even though tending to show the 39 Tex. Cr. 30, 44 SW 846. commission of the distinct crime of 11. Adams v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. sodomy, is relevant to illustrate 426, 138 SW 117. |