State v. Deal
| Decision Date | 03 November 1902 |
| Citation | 41 Or. 437,70 P. 532 |
| Parties | STATE v. DEAL. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Union county; Robert Eakin, Judge.
R.W Deal was convicted of stealing a gelding, and appeals. Reversed.
The defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced by judgment of the trial court for the crime of larceny by stealing a gelding, the property of one Charles Rowland. There was evidence introduced at the trial tending to show that the horse was brown in color, branded J.D. on the left shoulder about four years old, having white hind feet, and a cut or bruised knee. Charles Rowland, a witness for the state testified, in effect, that he was the owner of the animal that he traded for it, when a yearling, with Eddie Masterson that he never sold or disposed of it, and that the last time he saw it was in the spring, when it was in W.B. Campbell's pasture. As a defense, Deal claimed to have traded for the horse with Rowland about April, 1901, and that in the trade he obtained two J.D. horses, one being the gelding in question; also a sorrel saddle horse and a diamond dot mare,--four in all. On cross-examination, Rowland admitted that he had made a trade with Deal, but claimed that he let him have three horses only,--the sorrel saddle horse, the diamond dot mare, and a yearling colt, but neither of the J.D. horses, and hence not the gelding in question. Having stated that he was acquainted with William Brewer, he was further interrogated and answered as follows: And, having testified that he was acquainted with Cleve Hopper, was asked: For the purpose of contradicting Rowland, and showing that he had at other times made statements inconsistent with this testimony, Brewer was called, and testified that in the latter part of April, 1901, he was in company with him on the Foothill road, near the Shambaugh place, and had a conversation with him concerning the horses he then had and presently owned, whereupon witness was asked to state whether or not in that conversation Rowland said that he had traded two J.D. horses to defendant, or words to that effect. To this an objection was interposed and sustained, on the ground that the question was incompetent, because no proper foundation had been laid for impeachment. Following this an offer was made to show by the witness that Rowland stated, in the conversation referred to, that he had traded his two J.D. horses to R.W. Deal, the defendant, and that one of them had a lame or blemished knee, and this was refused. Later Brewer was again called, and asked whether or not, in the conversation with Rowland on the Foothill road, near the Shambaugh place, the latter part of April, referred to, he and Rowland, being alone, Rowland did not state to him that he had traded two J.D. horses to Mr. Deal, and two other horses, or words to that effect; and, not being permitted to answer, the offer was made to prove the fact indicated by the question, but without avail. Cleve Hopper was then called, and testified that he remembered seeing Rowland about the latter part of April, 1901, and going with him from the new town to the old town of La Grande, whereupon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nortin
...to examine what the common law rule is, its purposes, and limitations." Sheppard v. Yocum, 10 Or. 402 (1882). See also State v. Deal, 41 Or. 437, at p. 441, 70 P. 532. The foundation for impeachment of Mrs. Nortin was not laid with the technical accuracy which is desirable, and the same may......
-
State v. Gray
... ... mistake the one in the mind of the examiner, and to which ... reference is had; and, when this is done, it is sufficient ... Sheppard v. Yocum, 10 Or. 402; State v ... Ellsworth, 30 Or. 145, 47 P. 199; State v ... Bartmess, 33 Or. 110, 54 P. 167; State v. Deal, ... 41 Or. 437, 70 P. 532. It appears from the record that Mrs ... Hallgarth readily understood from the especial circumstances ... related to her when the conversation should have taken place, ... if at all, and was enabled to answer intelligently at once ... upon ... ...
-
State v. Patrick
... ... making them or attempts to qualify them, other persons, ... having knowledge of the facts, may be called to contradict ... the witness. State v. Welch, 33 Or. 33, 54 P. 213; ... State v. Bartmess, 33 Or. 110, 54 P. 167; State ... v. Deal, 41 Or. 437, 441, 70 P. 532 ... Referring ... to the foundation for impeachment, 1 Wharton's Criminal ... Evidence, § 483, after detailing the "time, place, ... person and circumstances" required by the law, says, in ... substance, that the preliminary ... ...