State v. Call
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. The respondents were indicted at the January term, 1905, of the Supreme Judicial Court, Washington County, for breaking and entering a sardine factory at Eastport and stealing therefrom sardine coppers to the value of ten dollars. The respondent, Call, was not apprehended but Gilligan and McMasters were arrested and held for trial jointly.
Read the full summary
On exceptions. The respondents were indicted at the January term, 1905, of the Supreme Judicial Court, Washington County, for breaking and entering a sardine factory at Eastport and stealing therefrom sardine coppers to the value of ten dollars. The respondent, Call, was not apprehended but Gilligan and McMasters were arrested and held for trial jointly. The evidence for the state and also for the defense showed that Gilligan and McMasters were together on the day 'when the crime was committed. The jury found these two respondents guilty as charged in the indictment. During the trial of the…
1Opinion of the CourtSavage, J.
At the trial of the respondents for breaking and entering and larceny, the state was permitted to show by oral testimony that when they were arraigned for the same offense at the preliminary examination in the municipal court, each pleaded that he was. guilty. Further, the state was permitted to introduce a copy of the record of the municipal court showing the same fact as to one of the defendants. To the rulings, admitting these pieces of evidence, the defendants excepted,
*405The defendants claim that their pleas of guilty in the lower court can properly be shown only by record, and that the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Wood v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- People v. SteinmetzNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- State v. SedamIdaho Supreme Court · 1940
- Lumpkin v. American Surety Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1943
- State v. CastonguaySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1970
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.