Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1867 · Evidence
97 Mass. 587 (1867)
Updated
Evidencecriminal defendant as witnesscross-examinationimpeachmentindictment sufficiencyelection to testifywitness liabilities
Facts
The indictment described the charged offense, and the court considered whether that description was sufficiently precise and unequivocal. A statute allowed the defendant, at his election, to become a witness. The defendant availed himself of that privilege. The resulting question was whether, after testifying, he was subject to cross-examination and impeachment like other witnesses.
Issue
When a criminal defendant elects to testify under a statute permitting him to become a witness, is he subject to the ordinary liabilities of a witness, including cross-examination and impeachment? The court also considered whether the indictment's description of the offense was sufficiently precise and unequivocal.
Rule
If a statute allows a criminal defendant to testify at his own election, then by choosing to testify he assumes the character of a witness and is subject to the ordinary liabilities incident to that position, including cross-examination and impeachment, unless the statute provides an exemption. An indictment is sufficient when the description of the offense is precise and unequivocal.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a burglary trial in Springfield, Massachusetts, a statute provides that an accused person may testify at his own election. Devin Cross chooses to take the stand and gives a detailed account denying involvement. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks pointed questions designed to test inconsistencies in Devin's story, and defense counsel objects that an accused who testifies may only be asked friendly clarifying questions.
How should the court rule?
Explanation. The governing rule is that when a statute allows a criminal defendant to testify at his own election, the defendant who chooses to do so assumes the character of a witness and is subject to the ordinary liabilities incident to that position. Those ordinary liabilities include cross-examination, unless the statute creates an exemption. Because the statute here merely permits testimony and does not exempt Devin from cross-examination, the objection should be overruled.