State v. Killeen
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Appeal, from a conviction for keeping intoxicating liquor for sale. Trial by jury and verdict of guilty. A bill of exceptions was allowed by Kivel, C. J., at the October term, 1917, of the superior court. The exceptions are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
The defendant’s exception to the court’s finding that a witness was qualified to testify as an expert raises the question of (1) the qualifications an expert must possess, and (2) whether the witness possessed these qualifications.
The first of these is a question of law. Boardman v. Woodman, 47 N. H. 120, 140; Dole v. Johnson, 50 N. H. 452; Jones v. Tucker, 41 N. H. 546. The second is a question of fact. Keefe v. Railroad, 75 N. H. 116, 121.
No test to determine the qualifications a witness must possess in order to be permitted to testify as an expert, which will reconcile anything like all…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Folsom v. Concord & Montreal RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1896
- Hardy v. MerrillSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875
- Davis v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1910
- Carpenter v. HatchSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1888
- Pattee v. WhitcombSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. WheelerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1982
- Jones v. BloomMichigan Supreme Court · 1972
- Carbone v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
- State v. MannionSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
- Olgiati v. New England Box Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1922
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.