State v. Medbury
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Indictment for adultery, and motion for new trial, upon two grounds. 1st. That the judge who presided at the trial erred in admitting as evidence the statements of defendant that he was a married man. 2d. That his statements in this regard were not sufficient evidence of the fact to sustain the verdict of guilty.
1Opinion of the Court
The evidence and authorities are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court, read by
Dureee, J.
The exceptions in this case raise the question whether, where a man is on trial for adultery, the allegation of the indictment that he is a married man may be proved by evidence of his own admissions to that effect. Upon this question there is some conflict of authority. In New York, The People v. Humphrey, 7 Johns. R. 314; and in Connecticnt, State v. Roswell, 6 Conn. 446, upon criminal charges involving the same point, it has been held that the marriage cannot be so proved. In Massachusetts,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. RoswellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1827
- Commonwealth v. LittlejohnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1818
- Cameron v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
- Ham's CaseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1834
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. John F.M.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2008