Taxicab Co., 95 Conn. 500, 111 A. 861, 862 (1920); Commonwealth v. Dame, 62 Mass.(8 Cush.) 384, 384 (1851); Little v. Gibson, 39 N.H. 505, 510 (1859); Whipple, 9 Cow. at 707; 1 Wigmore on Evidence, supra, § 520, at 651. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted this test in interpreting a provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution providing that “[n]o person hereafter convicted of embezzlement of public moneys, bribery, perjury or other infamous crime, shall be eligible to the General Assembly, or capable of holding any office of trust or profit in this Commonwealth.” Pa. Const, art. II, § 7 (emphasis added). Un ecause the general common law applicable to witness incompetency, so far as we can tell, has never been the law in Indiana. See, e.g., Glenn v. Clore, 42 Ind. 60, 61-62 (1873) (<HOLDING>); Alfred Moore, A Treatise on Indiana Criminal
holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness holding that conviction on appeal is not admissible to impeach witnesss credibility holding that summary convictions of crimes involving dishonesty could be used to impeach the credibility of a witness holding that it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness holding that assault and battery with intent to commit rape was not an infamous crime that would have ren dered a witness incompetent at indiana common law and therefore conviction thereof could not be used to impeach the credibility of a witness