State v. Wright

Supreme Court of Iowa

State v. Wright

30 N.W. 388, 70 Iowa 152, 1886 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 537

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedDecember 1, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 N.W. 388 (State v. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Wright, 30 N.W. 388, 70 Iowa 152, 1886 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 537 (iowa 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Seevees, J.

The record warrants the assumption that the evidence of one Webster was material, and without it there could no* be a conviction. Webster had testified as a witness on the preliminary examination of the defendant before a magistrate. The state claims that Webster died on the eighteenth day of February, 1885. This trial was commenced on the twentieth day of said month, and the state sought to prove, by a competent witness, what Webster testified to on such examination. To enable this to be done, the st,ate sought to establish the fact that Webster was dead; and one witness on the part of the state testified that he was, but that all he knew about it was that he had so heard. Another witness testified that he had so heard, and that such was the general report. The foregoing evidence was rejected by the court, and, in so ruling, it is insisted that the court erred. It is claimed by the state that the death of a person may be established by hearsay evidence. Possibly this is so in some cases; but the evidence offered for the purpose of establishing the death of Webster is not nearly so satisfactory as the evidence in Ross v. Loomis, 64 Iowa, 432; and, following that case, we must hold that the district court did not err.

It is true, it is insisted by the state that the sufficiency of the evidence was for the jury. This is so; but the admissibility and competency of evidence to establish any proposition must be determined by the court.

Aefibhed.

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

Seevees, J.

The record warrants the assumption that the evidence of one Webster was material, and without it there could no* be a conviction. Webster had testified as a witness on the preliminary examination of the defendant before a magistrate. The state claims that Webster died on the eighteenth day of February, 1885. This trial was commenced on the twentieth day of said month, and the state sought to prove, by a competent witness, what Webster testified to on such examination. To enable this to be done, the st,ate sought to establish the fact that Webster was dead; and one witness on the part of the state testified that he was, but that all he knew about it was that he had so heard. Another witness testified that he had so heard, and that such was the general report. The foregoing evidence was rejected by the court, and, in so ruling, it is insisted that the court erred. It is claimed by the state that the death of a person may be established by hearsay evidence. Possibly this is so in some cases; but the evidence offered for the purpose of establishing the death of Webster is not nearly so satisfactory as the evidence in Ross v. Loomis, 64 Iowa, 432; and, following that case, we must hold that the district court did not err.

It is true, it is insisted by the state that the sufficiency of the evidence was for the jury. This is so; but the admissibility and competency of evidence to establish any proposition must be determined by the court.

Aefibhed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 N.W. 388, 70 Iowa 152, 1886 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wright-iowa-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack