Page:Redd v. State (1897).pdf/9

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
ARK.]
REDD v. STATE.
465

but his clothing was not torn, nor were there any other wounds upon the body indicating a struggle.

Admissibility of non-expert testimony.Afterwards the defendant Redd was indicted jointlyay with Johnson and McKay for the murder of Skipper. Upon the trial counsel for the state undertook to show by the testimony of experts, and by proof of certain facts and circumstances, that the death of Skipper was not caused by himself, but by the hand of another. For this purpose, they introduced a medical expert, who testified that, in case of suicide by stabbing, the deceased would be likely to hold the knife tightly grasped in the hand, so that after death it would be extracted with difficulty. To further substantiate this theory that in suicide by stabbing the knife would be held tightly clasped in the hands of the deceased, the state introduced two non-expert witnesses. One of whom testified that he saw a Mr. Meek after his death by suicide, as he was informed, and that in his hands was a knife tightly clasped. In seeming contradiction to this statement, the witness, so the record shows, then added: "When I was there, he did not have the knife in his hands." The other witness testified as follows: "I saw Richard Jeter after he was killed. It is supposed that he killed himself in the night. It was one o'clock the next day when I saw him. He had a dagger in his hands grasped perfectly tight, and it took some effort to remove it." The appellant objected to the testimony of these two witnesses, and moved to exclude it; which motion being overruled, he excepted. We feel fully convinced that this testimony was improperly admitted. If we should concede that the fact that another person who had committed suicide by stabbing himself still held the knife tightly clasped in his hands after death was proper evidence for the jury to consider in this case—a proposition we consider at least doubtful—yet it is clear that the testimony here was based on nothing but


30