State v. McDonald
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
ÜN EXCEPTIONS. Complaint, for search and seizure. A verdict had been rendered against the defendant at a former term, which was set aside, and a new trial granted. At the second trial, the government, to impeach one of the defendant’s witnesses, offered to show that he testified differently at the former trial, by a witness who was present and heard him testify.
Read the full summary
ÜN EXCEPTIONS. Complaint, for search and seizure. A verdict had been rendered against the defendant at a former term, which was set aside, and a new trial granted. At the second trial, the government, to impeach one of the defendant’s witnesses, offered to show that he testified differently at the former trial, by a witness who was present and heard him testify. The testimony of the impeaching witness was objected to on the ground that it was not the best evidence; that the legally appointed stenographer who took short-hand notes of the testimony could give better evidence. The objection was…
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
A witness may be impeached by showing that he testified differently at a former trial; and his former testimony may be proved by any one who heard and recollects it. There is no rule of law which makes the stenographic reporter the only competent witness in such a case. The rule which requires the production of the best evidence is not applicable. Nothing more is intended by that rule than that evidence which is merely substitutionary in its nature shall not be received so long as the original evidence can be had. It does not allow secondary evidence to be substituted for that which is…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. PullenSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1970
- People v. ColonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
- People v. RobinsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934