State v. Gross

• Decision Date: 04 April 1931
• Citation: 154 A. 187
• Parties: STATE v. GROSS et al. (two cases).
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

154 A. 187

STATE

v. GROSS et al. (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 4, 1931.

Alton A. Gross and Harold I. Gross, in separate cases tried together, were convicted of incest, and Blanche Gross, defendant in each case, was acquitted, whereupon defendants convicted brought exceptions and made motions for a new trial.

Exceptions overruled, motions dismissed, and judgment entered for the State.

Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, FARRINGTON, and THAXTER, JJ.

Weston M. Hilton, of Damariscotta, for the State.

George A. Cowan, of Damariscotta, for respondents.

PATTANGALL, C. J.

Exceptions and motions. Indictments charging incest. Cases were tried together without objection. Verdicts of guilty were rendered against Alton A. Gross and Harold I. Gross; not guilty as to Blanche Gross.

The apparent inconsistency in the findings of the jury is accounted for by the fact that the evidence against the male respondents included confessions made by each of them, and that, aside from these confessions, the case did not warrant a conviction.

The exceptions relied upon are identical in both cases, and are set out as follows:

"Respondent objected to a certain exhibit numbered 'State 3' offered as a confession. The Court overruled the objection and admitted the exhibit without specifying as to which respondent it applied, no request therefor being made by counsel for respondent. And the respondent excepted."

"The respondent objected to a certain exhibit marked 'State 4' offered by the State. The Court overruled the objection and admitted the exhibit without specifying as to which respondent the exhibit applied, no request being made therefor by respondent's counsel. And the respondent excepted."

Even if it could be said that the matters complained of are sufficiently set forth in the above-quoted paragraphs so that this court could intelligently act upon them, and if it be assumed that respondents are entitled to have the questions considered, though hot raised at the time the exhibits were admitted, respondents have no cause for complaint, because the presiding justice in his charge to the jury carefully protected their rights in this respect.

The jury was instructed that "the confession of one has no effect upon the other. For instance the confession of Harold Gross has no tendency to prove the guilt of Alton Gross and it cannot be used for that purpose nor can the confession of either or both of these respondents be...