State v. May
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Clinton District Court. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. There is no evidence of the corpus delicti aside from the declaration of one West Smith, not under oath, and not in the presence of defendant. II. The- court erred in admitting the declarations of. West Smith that the liquors had been stolen.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clinton District Court. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. There is no evidence of the corpus delicti aside from the declaration of one West Smith, not under oath, and not in the presence of defendant. II. The- court erred in admitting the declarations of. West Smith that the liquors had been stolen. West Smith was a witness .who knew the fact if it existed, and he should have been called, but he was not, and no excuse is shown by the State why they did not call him. Williams v. The Rast India Company, 3 Bast, 192; Commonwealth v. Kinison, 4 Mass., 646; Commonwealth v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Lowe, Ch. J.
l. New trial: hearsay evidence. Timothy May was indicted for stealing ten gallons of gin, ten of wine, ten of brandy, and thirty gallons of whisky, of the- aggregate value of ninety dollars, the property of one Hugh Forbes; was tried and convicted, which was followed by the sentence of the law upon him.
In appealing, his counsel objects, first, that the court, against the exceptions of the defendant, permitted a witness by the name of Jeremiah Shade to testify to the jury to the effect that one West Smith had said, that he, Smith, had been left in possession of the building, owned…
2Cited by22 opinions
- People v. WardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Board of Police Commissioners v. WagnerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1901
- Fears v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- People v. . OtisNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- State v. PattersonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1903
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.