Hollywood v. State
| Decision Date | 12 January 1912 |
| Docket Number | 654 |
| Citation | 19 Wyo. 493,120 P. 471 |
| Parties | HOLLYWOOD v. STATE |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Original Opinion of January 12, 1912, Reported at: 19 Wyo. 493.
Rehearing denied.
M. C Brown, for plaintiff in error, on petition for rehearing argued that the defendant was not committing an unlawful act in his attempt to disarm the deceased, and that the dying statement was admissible and erroneously excluded, citing, in addition to the authorities cited in the original brief, the following: State v. Ashworth, 50 La. Ann. 94; State v. Freeman, 1 Spears, (S. C.) 57; McLean v. State, 16 Ala. 672; State v. Gile, 8 Wash 12; Walker v. State, 39 Ark. 221; Com. v. Matthews, 89 Ky. 287; Wroe v. State, 20 O. St. 464; Paine v. State, 61 Miss. 101; Powers v. State, 74 Miss. 777; Pierson v. State, 21 Tex.App. 14; Boyle v. State, 105 Ind. 469; Darby v. State, 79 Ga. 63; People v. Abbott, (Cal.) 4 P. 770; State v. Nettlebush, 20 Ia. 257; State v. Mace, 118 N.C. 124; Wagner v. Terr., (Ariz.) 51 P. 145; 10 Ency. L. (2nd Ed.) 382; Brotherton v. People, 75 N.Y. 159; People v. Farmer, 77 Cal. 1; State v. Arnold, 35 N.C. 184; State v. Foote, 24 Ore. 61; Baxter v. State, 15 Lea, 657.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
The plaintiff in error has filed a petition for a rehearing. No new question is here presented for our consideration, but it is sought to have this court again review the questions discussed in the opinion filed.
It is urged that the court failed to pass upon the alleged error of the court in permitting the official stenographer to identify under oath a complete transcript of the evidence taken and given at the coroner's inquest. The transcript was not offered in evidence. This alleged error was not made a specific ground in the motion for a new trial, and for that reason it was not discussed in the opinion filed nor need it be here discussed.
In support of the petition, among other grounds, it is earnestly insisted that the court reached an erroneous conclusion as to the inadmissibility of the dying declaration of the deceased. We are aware that there is some difficulty in fixing the line as to what constitutes an opinion and therefore inadmissible and what constitutes the declaration of an evidentiary fact and admissible as a dying declaration, assuming, of course, that the foundation has been properly laid. The rule was stated in the opinion in the precise language used in House v. State, cited therein. We confess that we had much difficulty in reaching the conclusion and only after a thorough examination of cases on the brief and others which were not cited were we enabled to reach a conclusion satisfactory to all the members of this court. In view of the earnestness of the eminent counsel for plaintiff in error, we have again examined the record and the cases cited in the brief in support of this motion and are not convinced that any good purpose would be served by granting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krucheck v. State
... ... State, supra, 128 P.2d at 222-223 ... " * * * The accidental killing of a human being by another is not a defense, unless caused in the doing of some lawful act. [Citations.]" Hollywood v. State, 19 Wyo. 493, 120 P. 471, 478 (1912) ... The appellant in this case was doing nothing that was lawful. The evidence emphatically discloses that he threatened, assaulted and shot his victim, without provocation. A defendant has a right to an instruction upon the theory ... ...
-
People v. Roderman
... Page 209 ... 229 N.Y.S.2d 209 ... 34 Misc.2d 497 ... The PEOPLE of the State of New York ... Charles RODERMAN, James Dowd, Defendants ... Queens County Court ... May 29, 1962 ... Page 210 ... [34 ... 42, 44, 49 So. 224 [1909]) and others countenance its rejection (Commonwealth v. Williams, 304 Pa. 299, 302, 156 A. 86 [1931]; Hollywood v. State, 19 Wyo. 493, 513, 514, 120 P. 471, 122 P. 588 [1912]) but qualify the ruling with an admonition that as a matter of discretion, a ... ...
- Hollywood v. State
-
State v. Spears, 2729
... ... His substantial rights must have been sacrificed; and if the errors which he sets up are such as to have done no harm, the judgment will not be reversed. * * *' 3 Am.Jur. 560, citing Hollywood v. State, 19 Wyo. 493, 120 P. 471, 122 P. 588, Ann.Cas.1913E, 218 ... Regarding his request to have attachment of witnesses and a continuance until they were brought into court, defendant quotes Art. 1, § 10 of the Wyoming Constitution, 'In all criminal prosecutions the accused ... ...