State v. Babcock
| Decision Date | 06 June 1903 |
| Citation | 25 R.I. 224,55 A. 685 |
| Parties | STATE v. BABCOCK. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Fred G. Babcock was convicted of maintaining a disorderly house, and petitions for a new trial. Denied.
Argued before STINESS, C. J., and DOUGLAS and DUBOIS, JJ.
William B. Greenough, for the State.
Samuel W. K. Allen, for defendant.
The defendant, convicted of keeping and maintaining a common nuisance in the town of North Kingstown, has brought liis petition for a new trial upon the grounds that the verdict is against the evidence and the weight thereof; that the court erred in its rulings, and in admitting testimony, contrary to law, which was prejudicial to the defendant.
The evidence, consisting of testimony that beer and whisky were sold and drunk in the house of and in the presence of the defendant on several Sundays, that men and women danced in said house on said Sundays, that drunken people were found on the premises, and that bottles, jugs, and receptacles for liquor were also there found, with testimony as to the notorious character of the premises, was sufficient.
The first exception taken by the defendant was to the ruling of the court overruling his objection that the counsel for the state was crosseramining its own witness by asking the following question in the redirect examination of George Card, viz.: "Do you know whether or not this was since last winter that you went there?" The question directed the attention of the witness to the time when he was at the defendant's house, in order to satisfy the jury that the witness was testifying to events that occurred within the time covered by the indictment, and was asked after the cross-examination by the counsel for the defendant, which had disclosed the fact that the witness was not positive as to the exact date of his visit. Under the circumstances, the question was not improper, and was so much within the discretion of the court that we should hesitate before interfering in such a matter. State v. Williams, 6 R. I. 207.
The second exception was to the refusal of the court to allow Albert C. Reynolds, a witness for the state, to testify as to his opinion, on cross-examination by the counsel for the defendant, in answer to the following incomplete question: "If he had a sister-in-law and a brother-in-law at this place, and a niece at this place, and he went there on Sunday to see them, do you mean—" It appears from an examination of the record that the witness Reynolds had testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. United States
...abandoned ruffian." As supporting the cross-examination theory, see Elliott on Evidence, § 216; 40 Cyc. p. 2622. See, also, State v. Babcock, 25 R. I. 224, 55 A. 685; State v. Ellwood, 17 R. I. 763, 24 A. 782; Keaton v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 621, 57 S. W. 1125; State v. Ekanger, 8 N. D. 559......
-
State v. Lombardi, 73-110-C
...829 (1970); Pedorella v. Hoffman, 91 R.I. 487, 165 A.2d 721 (1960); Brown v. Howard, 43 R.I. 571, 114 A. 11 (1921); State v. Babcock, 25 R.I. 224, 226, 55 A. 685, 686 (1903). This court's approach to the problem, though perhaps at variance with a recent trend in some of the decisions, rests......
-
Commonwealth v. Walsh
... ... rule established permitting proof of such conviction by a ... cross-examination of the witness. State v. Bartlett, ... 98 Me. 432, 57 A. 588, McGovern v. Hays, 75 Vt. 104, ... 53 A. 326, McLaughlin v. Mencke, 80 Md. 83, 30 A ... 603, Clemens v. nrad, 19 Mich. 170, and State ... v. Babcock, 25 R.I. 224, 55 A. 685, are cited as ... authorities in support of this contention. The Massachusetts ... rule is supported by Hall v. Brown, 30 ... ...
-
Brown v. Howard
... ... For many years it has been the practice in this state to permit counsel to ask on cross-examination a party to a cause who takes the witness stand, as well as other witnesses, whether or not he has been ... See State v. Vanasse, 42 R. I. 278, 107 Atl. 85; State v. Babcock, 25 R. I. 224, 55 Atl. 685; State v. Ellwood, 17 R. I. 763, 24 Atl. 782 ... Exceptions 5 to 14, inclusive, are overruled. All of the ... ...