Commonwealth v. Pope
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for the crime against nature. At the trial in the superior court, Putnam, J., permitted a witness, who saw the clothes of the defendant at the time in question, to testify to spots and stains on them, without producing the clothes or showing any reason for not producing them ; and also to testify that he examined the boots of the defendant and footprints near the place where the crime was committed, and thought that the boots would fit the footprints and were of…
Read the full summary
Indictment for the crime against nature. At the trial in the superior court, Putnam, J., permitted a witness, who saw the clothes of the defendant at the time in question, to testify to spots and stains on them, without producing the clothes or showing any reason for not producing them ; and also to testify that he examined the boots of the defendant and footprints near the place where the crime was committed, and thought that the boots would fit the footprints and were of the same size. The defendant was convicted, and alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
These exceptions are groundless and frivolous. Whenever evidence of the condition of clothes or other articles of personal property is competent and material, their condition may be described by witnesses, without producing the articles themselves. The correspondence between boots and footprints is a matter requiring no peculiar knowledge to judge of, and as to which any person who has seen both may testify.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by20 opinions
- Hopt v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Commonwealth v. SturtivantMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- People v. JenningsIllinois Supreme Court · 1911
- State v. FullerMontana Supreme Court · 1906
- Yahn v. City of OttumwaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.