State v. Crowley

• Decision Date: 12 July 1915
• Citation: 113 Me. 568,94 A. 754
• Parties: STATE v. CROWLEY.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

94 A. 754

113 Me. 568

STATE

v. CROWLEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

July 12, 1915.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial. Court, Penobscot County, at Law.

Daniel J. Crowley was convicted of intoxication, and he excepts to a denial of his motion for new trial. Exceptions overruled.

Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and SPEAR, CORNISH, KING, BIRD, HALEY, and HANSON, JJ.

A. L. Blanchard, of Bangor, for appellant. Donald F. Snow, Co. Atty., of Bangor, for the State.

PER CURIAM. On the 25th day of May, 1914, the respondent was tried and found guilty by the judge of the Bangor municipal court upon a charge of intoxication, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $3 and the costs of prosecution.

From such sentence the respondent appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, and was thereupon ordered to recognize with sufficient sureties, to appear and prosecute his appeal. The respondent recognized as ordered, and the case was tried at the September term of said court, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The case is before the law court on exceptions to a ruling of the presiding justice denying a motion seasonably made for a new trial. The grounds of exception may be stated from the bill:

"After verdict, and before sentence, the respondent filed a motion to have said verdict set aside and a new trial granted, because there was sent to the jury, by accident or mistake, and there remained with them during their deliberations, besides the complaint and warrant upon which he was tried, a document purporting to be a record showing that the respondent was fined $3 and costs by said municipal court, also a document purporting to be a record of the respondent's trial, conviction, and sentence in said court, also a document purporting to show that said respondent was found guilty by said court, and appealed and furnished bonds for his appearance at the September term, 1914. Said documents were given to the jury after the charge of the presiding justice, without the knowledge or consent of the respondent or his attorney, and they were not offered as evidence during the trial."

The record shows that the foreman and one other juror at least read the documents. It is not claimed that the documents mentioned were purposely passed to the jury. On the contrary, counsel in his bill of exceptions states that they were sent to the jury by accident or mistake.

The evidence submitted in support of the motion shows substantially that copies of the original record had been...