Mattson v. United States
| Decision Date | 12 August 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 6564.,6564. |
| Parties | MATTSON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Victor Essling, of Eveleth, Minn., and Leonard McHugh and M. T. O'Donnell, both of Duluth, Minn., for plaintiff in error.
Lafayette French, Jr., U. S. Atty., of St. Paul, Minn.
Before SANBORN, LEWIS, and BOOTH, Circuit Judges.
The defendant below, Mary Mattson, was tried and convicted under an information which, in its first count, charged her with unlawful possession on August 2, 1922, of intoxicating liquor at a residence in Fayal township in the county of St. Louis, Minn., and, in the second count, with the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor at the same place on July 26, 1922.
At the commencement of the trial, counsel for the defendant called the attention of the court to the fact that two separate offenses alleged to have been committed at different times were charged, made a motion that the two charges be tried separately, and that motion was denied. The United States then called as a witness on its behalf Mr. Vittala, who testified that he was a federal prohibition agent; that the place described in the information was a residence; that he could not prove that it was used for any other purpose than a residence; that it was farm property; that there was a barn or shed and another building besides the house on the place; and that, on July 26, 1922, he called at the house and bought of the defendant and paid her $1 for a bottle of moonshine whisky. On cross-examination by defendant's counsel, he testified that he went to the defendant's place as a government officer; that he used his own money, but the government reimburses him for the money that he spends in buying evidence; that he went there to get evidence in his work; and that, of course, he did not inform the defendant of that fact. He testified to nothing else on his cross-examination. Thereupon, over the objection and exception of counsel for the defendant that the following testimony was hearsay and incompetent, Vittala testified on redirect examination by counsel for the government as follows:
When this evidence was received there had been no testimony that the residence where Vittala testified he bought this liquor was used as a place of keeping or selling intoxicating liquor. On the other hand, in response to direct questions of counsel for the government, Vittala had testified on his direct examination as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landsdown v. United States
...United States, 1942, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 197, 125 F.2d 559; Smith v. United States, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 255, 105 F.2d 778; Mattson v. United States, 8th Cir. 1925, 7 F.2d 427; State v. Kimble, 214 La. 58, 36 So.2d 637 (1948). Cf. Lufkin v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 501, 164 S.W.2d 709 ...
-
United States v. Ambrose, 72-2190
...the defendant any chance or opportunity to refute or contradict the testimony regarding such complaints, * * *." Mattson v. United States, 8 Cir., 7 F.2d 427, 428 (1925). We believe that to the extent that testimony of this character might be utilized by a jury to assay the appellant\'s pre......
-
Smith v. United States, 7305.
...the evidence might be received for that purpose alone and not in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. In Mattson v. United States, 8 Cir., 7 F.2d 427, and in Biandi v. United States, 6 Cir., 259 F. 93, such evidence was held to be hearsay and inadmissible. And we said as muc......
-
George v. United States, 8037.
...of this, the officer's testimony was inadmissible. Smith v. United States, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 255, 105 F.2d 778; Mattson v. United States, 8 Cir., 1925, 7 F.2d 427; Bolt v. United States, 1924, 55 App.D.C. 120, 2 F.2d 922; Biandi v. United States, 6 Cir., 1919, 259 F. 93. But the admission o......
-
The Louisiana 'Explanatory Exception': Faithfulness to Louisiana?s Hearsay Framework or Mere Storytime with the Prosecution?
...to a fact that is of consequence to determining the case). 37. 259 F. 93 (6th Cir. 1919). 38 . Id. at 93. 39 . Mattson v. United States, 7 F.2d 427, 428 (8th Cir. 1925). 40 . Bolt v. United States, 2 F.2d 922, 922–23 (D.C. Cir. 1924). 41 . Mattson , 7 F.2d at 427–28; Bolt , 2 F.2d at 922–23......