State v. Hersom

• Citation: 90 Me. 273,38 A. 160
• Parties: STATE v. HERSOM.
• Decision Date: 13 May 1897
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

38 A. 160

90 Me. 273

STATE

v. HERSOM.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

May 13, 1897.

(Official.)

Exceptions from superior court, Kennebec county.

John Hersom was convicted of assault, and excepted. Exceptions overruled.

G. W. Heselton, Co. Atty., for the State.

S. S. Brown, Jos. Williamson, Jr., and L. A. Burleigh, for defendant.

PETERS, C. J. The counsel for the respondent energetically protest against the order of the superior court of Kennebec county that these exceptions be argued in writing, and that the arguments be transmitted to the chief justice of this court within 30 days after the date of such order. There being no ruling or suggestion that the exceptions are frivolous, or Intended for delay, we do not perceive why the judge of that court may not make such an order by virtue of the power conferred on him by section 75 of chapter 77 of the Revised Statutes, relating to procedure in the superior courts of the state. That section provides that "all exceptions arising within the exclusive jurisdiction of either of said superior courts may be certified at once to the chief justice of the supreme judicial court, and shall, when so certified, be argued in writing on both sides within thirty days thereafter, unless the time for good cause be extended by the judge of said court." This seems to be a general provision applicable to civil and criminal cases alike. We think, however, that this discretionary power of the judge should be sparingly exercised in important criminal cases, for the reason that the order deprives a respondent of the privilege—which he may consider very valuable—of discussing his case before the court of last resort in open session. Anciently, personal presence of the accused was considered an indispensable necessity in all the stages of a trial until the final result.

Complaint is made by the respondent that a photograph of the room, and fixtures therein, in which the assault was alleged to have been committed by the respondent, was admitted in evidence. The correctness of the photograph was certified to by witnesses, and the jury visited and inspected the room for themselves. The defense had the same opportunity that the government had to ascertain how closely and correctly the picture represented the appearance of the room. It seems to us the criticisms by the defense are not well founded. Any plan or picture may be admitted, in the discretion of the court, in illustration or explanation of the testimony introduced...