Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/542

 the jurymen. A party must not be convicted of crime upon proof of a criminal disposition, however depraved or however pronounced. Nor should a prisoner on trial be expected to be prepared to defend his entire past record. No such demand is made upon him. He is simply required to defend against the specific offense for which he is on trial. For these reasons courts have almost uniformly held that proof of a collateral crime could not be introduced, unless there was such a logical connection between the collateral offense and the offense charged that the proof of the collateral offense furnished some legal evidence tending to establish some fact necessary to be established in proving the crime charged. There are some exceptions to this rule pertaining to offenses of a peculiar nature, but they do not affect this case, and need not be specifically noticed. The whole subject, including the cases on both sides and the exceptions, will be found fully discussed and exhausted in the great case of State v. LaPage, 57 N. H. 245, 2 Amer. Crim. Rep. 506.

But, keeping this rule in view, we do not think the court erred in admitting the testimoney of the witness Fiest. That testimony tended directly to establish the fact that the prisoner was in the immediate locality where the crime charged was alleged to have been committed, at or near the time of its commission. That fact might have been shown, however, without going to the extent of proving the assault upon the witness Fiest. But proof of such assault had a direct tendency to establish method and system in the conduct of the prisoner and Howard, and to explain the character and purpose of their further acts. If they contemplated a criminal enterprise, and were there for that purpose, they would naturally object to having witnesses to their conduct, and, if they drove the witness Fiest from the locality, the inference is legitimate and logical that they then contemplated a criminal enterprise. We think the testimony was proper, under State v. LaPage, supra; and see, also, Guthrie v. State, 16 Neb. 667, 21 N. W. Rep. 455; Kramer v. Com. 87 Pa. St. 209; Thayer v. Thayer, 101 Mass. 111. But for the error hereinbefore pointed out the district court is directed to set aside the judgment heretofore entered in this case, and proceed in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed. All concur.