State v. Huxford
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Webster District Court. The defendant was convicted of having been found in a state of intoxication, and now appeals to this court.
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
i evidence witnessMntoxication. I. A witness for the State being asked what the defendant’s condition was, answered: “He was intoxicated.” • c^aimed ^7 the defendant that the testimony was inadmissil>le5 that the fact of intoxication was ^ ultimate fact to be determined by the jury, and that it was proper for the witness to state only the conduct and demeanor of the defendant.
Witnesses cannot in general give their opinions, and must be confined in their testimony to facts which are matters of direct observation, rather than deduction or inference. There are cases, however, where evidence of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- The People v. . EastwoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- De Witt v. . Barly and SchoonmakerNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Ashcraft v. De ArmondSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Dewitt v. . Barley and SchoonmakerNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
3Cited by20 opinions
- Yahn v. City of OttumwaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1965
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1972
- State v. KendallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1925
- Commonwealth v. EylerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.