HOLDER
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Holder was convicted of murder in the Choctaw Nation and appealed on three grounds: that a witness who violated the court's order to exclude witnesses from the courtroom should have been disqualified, that the trial court's charge was erroneous, and that his motion for a new trial was wrongly denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a witness who disobeys an exclusion order is not automatically disqualified from testifying (though his conduct may be commented upon), that general exceptions to a charge without specification of particular erroneous portions raise no reviewable question, and that the denial of a motion for new trial cannot be assigned as error on appeal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered' the opinion of the court.
H older was convicted of the murder of one Bickford, in the' Choctaw Nation, on December 21,1891. Upon the trial three exceptions were saved, namely : to the overruling of objections to the testimony of a witness who had been present during the examination of the other witnesses in disobedience of an order of court on that subject; to the entire charge of the court; and to the denial of a-motion for a new trial.
1. It seems that the court directed the witnesses, except the one under examination, to be excluded from the court-room, and that John Bickford, an uncle of the deceased, remained notwithstanding, but that no objection on that ground was made to Bickford testifying until after he had done so, other' evidence had intervened, and he was recalled to testify in relation to the turning over to him by the United States marshal of some personal property of the deceased.
It was then objected that he had heard the testimony of the other witnesses in disregard of the direction of the court in that behalf, and the objection was ov.erruled.
Upon the motion or suggestion-of either party, such a direction as that in question is usually given. If a-witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt and his testimony is open to.comment to the jury by reason of his conduct, he is not thereby disqualified, and the weight of authority is that he cannot be excluded on that ground merely, although the right to exclude under particular circumstances may be supported as within the sound discretion of the trial court. 1 Greenl. Ev. (15th ed.) § 432, and cases cited; Chandler v. Horn, 2 Moody & Rob. 423; Rex v. Colley, Moody & Malkin, 329; Bulliner v. People, 95 Illinois, 394; State v. Ward, 61 Vermont, 153, 179; Laughlin v. State, 18 Ohio, 99; Wilson v. State; 52 Alabama, 299 ; Lassiter v. State, 67 Georgia, 739 ; Smith v. State, 4 Lea, (Tenn.,) 428 ; Hubbard v. Hubbard, 7 Oregon, 42. Olearly, the action of the' court in admitting the testimony will not ordinarily be open to revision. Tested by these principles, the exception under consideration cannot be sustained.
2. There is no pretence that the charge of the court, occupying twenty-four pages of the printed record, was erroneous in every part, and no exception to any particular part is shown. The rule is that a general exception to a charge, which does not direct the attention of the court to the particular portions of it to which objection is made, raises no question for review. Burton v. West Jersey Ferry Co., 114 U. S. 474; Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co. v. Blake, 144 U. S. 476, 488; Lewis v. United States, 146 U. S. 370.
3. It has also been settled by a long line of decisions of this court that the denial of a motion for new trial cannot be assigned for error. -As observed by Mr. Justice Lamar, in Van Stone v. Stillwell & Bierce Mfg. Co., 142 U. S. 128, 134, no authorities need be cited in support of the proposition.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (70 total)
-
Atkinson v. State, 317 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…was reversible error for the court to disqualify the witnesses from testifying absent a finding that the rule violation was with the knowledge, connivance, or consent of the defendant or his counsel. In the leading case of Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 14 S.Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893), the court stated: “If a witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt, and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct, he is not thereby disqu…
-
Dumas v. State, 350 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1977)…). Balanced against the rule, however, is the criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment and due process right to present witnesses in his own behalf. See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). In Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 14 S.Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893), the Court indicated the nature of the rule and consequence of its breach: “If a witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt, and his testimony is open to comment to th…
-
Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1897)…United States, 138 U. S. 353, 355. “ The general rule undoubtedly is that an. objection should be so framed as to- indicate the precise point upon which the court is asked to rule.” Sparf v. United States, 156 U. S. 51, 56; Holder v. United States, 150 U. S. 91; Tucker v. United States, 151 U. S. 164. It is true the defendant objected to the admission of the conversation before it was given, but upon the state of facts as then presented unquestionably the trial court ruled properly in permitting the witne…
Previewing 3 of 70 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370 (U.S. 1892)
- Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co. v. Blake, 144 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1892)
- Van Stone v. Stillwell & Bierce Mfg. Co., 142 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1891)
- Burton v. W. Jersey Ferry Co., 114 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1885)