State v. Virden

New York Court of General Session of the Peace

State v. Virden

118 A. 597, 32 Del. 32, 2 W.W. Harr. 32, 1922 Del. LEXIS 27

CourtNew York Court of General Session of the Peace

DecidedJune 28, 1922

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 118 A. 597 (State v. Virden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of General Session of the Peace primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Virden, 118 A. 597, 32 Del. 32, 2 W.W. Harr. 32, 1922 Del. LEXIS 27 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Harrington, J.,

delivering the opinion of the Court:

It is well settled that the testimony of a deceased witness in a criminal case, given at a former hearing of the same case is ad[33]*33missible in evidence for the defendant on the ground of necessity, the parties and the issue being precisely the same. The objection of lack of opportunity to cross-examine the deceased witness is met by the fact that the state had full opportunity to cross-examine him when he testified at the former trial. Stephen’s Digest on Evidence, 107; Chamberlayne’s Hand Book on Evidence, 642; Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, vol. 1, §§ 227, 228; Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, § 261; 8 R. C. L. (Criminal Law) § 209; Bishop’s New Criminal Proc. §§ 1195, and 1196.

In this state such evidence has already been held to be admissible in civil cases. Kinney v. Hosea, 3 Harr. 397. See also Rogers v. Rogers, 6 Penn. 267, 66 Atl. 374.

The evidence is therefore admitted; whether it would, however, be admissible if offered by the state, might present a different question.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Harrington, J.,

delivering the opinion of the Court:

It is well settled that the testimony of a deceased witness in a criminal case, given at a former hearing of the same case is ad[33]*33missible in evidence for the defendant on the ground of necessity, the parties and the issue being precisely the same. The objection of lack of opportunity to cross-examine the deceased witness is met by the fact that the state had full opportunity to cross-examine him when he testified at the former trial. Stephen’s Digest on Evidence, 107; Chamberlayne’s Hand Book on Evidence, 642; Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, vol. 1, §§ 227, 228; Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, § 261; 8 R. C. L. (Criminal Law) § 209; Bishop’s New Criminal Proc. §§ 1195, and 1196.

In this state such evidence has already been held to be admissible in civil cases. Kinney v. Hosea, 3 Harr. 397. See also Rogers v. Rogers, 6 Penn. 267, 66 Atl. 374.

The evidence is therefore admitted; whether it would, however, be admissible if offered by the state, might present a different question.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A. 597, 32 Del. 32, 2 W.W. Harr. 32, 1922 Del. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-virden-nygensess-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack