Territory v. Neilson
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Bear Lake County. Hearsay testimony and evidence of character on the part of the prosecution is not admissible.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Bear Lake County. Hearsay testimony and evidence of character on the part of the prosecution is not admissible. (Mima Queen v. 'Hepburn, 7 Cranch, 290; Davis v. Wood, 1 Wheat. 6; Regina v. Turberfield, 10 Cox C. C. 1; Staie v. Thurtell, 29 Kan. 148; People v. Fair, 43 Cal. 137; 1 Phillips on Evidence, 644; State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 289; Cheney v. State, 7 Ohio, 222.) Where an act may be either guilty or innocent, and there is no proof as to which it is, or where a business may be lawful or unlawful, and there is no proof as to which it is, then it is clear that the…
1Opinion of the CourtBeatty, C. J.
The appellant was indicted for unlawful fishing alleged to have been done in. Bear Lake county. At the *616close of the people’s testimony the appellant moved the court to instruct the jury to render a verdict of acquittal, which motion was overruled. The appellant then introduced testimony in his behalf, and thereafter the jury found a verdict against him, upon which judgment was rendered, from which he has taken his appeal to this court.
The appellant has assigned numerous alleged errors based upon the ruling of the court on the introduction of the evidence. All such alleged errors must be…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. CummingsSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Accident Insurance v. CrandalSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- People v. HornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. BrooksIdaho Court of Appeals · 1982
- Clark v. PaddockIdaho Supreme Court · 1913
- State v. StewartNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1929
- State v. PeckIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
- State v. DouglassIdaho Supreme Court · 1922
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.