University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository
Abstract
ln an action to recover for personal injuries sustained in 1945, at which time he was a prisoner of the State of Virginia, plaintiff testified in his own behalf at the jury trial. On cross-examination, he admitted that he had been convicted of assault in 1943, that sentence had been suspended on condition that he enter the service, and that he had been sentenced to jail when he failed to enter the service. In his argument, defendant\u27s attorney declared that the action had its inception in 1943, and emphasized that plaintiff had failed to enter the service when the sentence for assault was suspended. Verdict and judgment entered for defendant. On appeal, held, reversed. The introduction of evidence relating to plaintiff\u27s failure to enter the service, and the argument of defendant\u27s attorney referring to that failure, were improper and prejudicial. Hockaday v. Red Line, (App. D.C. 1949) 174 F. (2d) 154
