Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Ackerman

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided January 10, 1929Published

1Dissent

I think the defendant is entitled to have a new trial because of prejudicial errors in the admission of evidence and in the charge to the jury.

The first witness called by the State was an assistant clerk of the Sixth District Court. On direct examination she was asked to produce a search-warrant issued from seized, court September 13, 1927, and the return thereon made on September 17. Question 7, in direct examination is, "What is your final entry on that?" (referring to the search-warrant). The defense objected to this question on the ground that all of the entries on the warrant and return…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. CollinsSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1907
  2. State v. SeymourSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1924
  3. Jeremiah Sheldon, Jr. v. Gilbert B. ComstockSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1854

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API