The evidence of dying declarations may be discredited or impeached in the same manner and by the same rules or tests that the testimony of the deceased could have been, had he appeared on the stand as a witness.105

On cross-examination of a witness to a dying statement it is competent to show that the deceased was in a reckless, irreverent state of mind, hostile toward the accused, and used profane language at the time he made the statement.106

100 Underbill's Cr. Law, Ev., Sec. 113; Gillett, Indirect & Col. Ev., Sec. 201; Mockabee vs. Com., 78 Ky., 382.

101 Montgomery vs. State, 11 Ohio, 424; Mattox vs. U. S., 146 U. S., 140; People vs. Chase, 79 Hun. (N. Y.), 296; Underbill's Cr. Ev., Sec. 110.

102 State vs. Tweedy, 11 Iowa, 359;

State vs. Walton, 92 Iowa, 455. 103 Dunn vs. People, 172 111., 587;

Boulden vs. State, 102 Ala., 78. 104 State vs. Tweed, 11 Iowa, 359;

Merrill vs. State, 58 Miss., 65. 105 Carver vs. U. S., 164 U. S., 693;

Lester vs. State, 37 Fla., 382.

Evidence of contradictory statements may be given as tending to impeach the dying statement, whether such contradictions appear in the statement itself or in different declarations.107 And it is error for the court to refuse evidence tending to discredit dying statements.108

Other features of evidence in homicide cases and matters relating to the indictments will be found in another part of this work under the titles of Evidence and Indictments.