State v. Kane
| Decision Date | 24 February 1909 |
| Citation | 77 N.J.L. 244,72 A. 39 |
| Parties | STATE v. KANE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Essex County.
Valentine Kane was convicted of breaking and entering and larceny, and he appeals. Reversed.
Argued November term, 1908, before GUMMERE, C. J., and SWAYZE and TRENCHARD, JJ.
Crane & Astley, for appellant. Wilbur A. Mott, for the State.
The plaintiff in error was jointly indicted with one Lester Gerry for the crime of breaking, entering, and larceny. Gerry pleaded guilty and was produced by the state as a witness against Kane upon the trial of the latter. The crime was committed late on Saturday night, August 26, 1900. Kane was arrested about 10 o'clock the following morning in the neighborhood of Gerry's home. On the witness stand Kane accounted for his presence in the locality by saying that he went there to meet a friend named Lamont, who lived on the same street as Gerry, and only a short distance away, and with whom he said he expected to attend church that morning. On rebuttal the state produced testimony tending to show that the purpose of Kane in going to the place where he was arrested was to meet Gerry, his alleged partner in the crime which was charged against him. Kane then called Lamont as a witness and attempted to prove by him the making of an appointment with him on Saturday evening to attend church on Sunday morning. Lamont was asked by defendant's counsel whether, when he parted with Kane on Saturday night, anything was said about their meeting the next morning. The witness replied: "Yes, sir; he said—" He was then interrupted by the prosecuting attorney, who said: "I object to anything he was to do the next morning." The following colloquy then took place between the defendant's counsel and the court:
So far as appears from the record neither the ground of the prosecutor's objection nor of the court's ruling was stated, but we think it may fairly be presumed from the remark of the court, "Kane's statement—I can't allow that," and from the argument submitted before us on behalf of the state, that the excluded testimony was thought, both by court and counsel, to be objectionable because it called for the declaration of a party to the suit in his own favor; but although, as a general rule, a party's own declarations are not evidence for him, this is not so where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thornton
...48 N.J.Super. 265, 137 A.2d 440 (App.Div.1958); Schloss v. Trounstine, 135 N.J.L. 11, 49 A.2d 677 (Sup.Ct.1946); State v. Kane, 77 N.J.L. 244, 72 A. 39 (Sup.Ct.1909); 6 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940), §§ 1715, 1725; Annotation, 113 A.L.R. 268 (1938). It may be regarded as long since settle......
-
State v. Metalski
...policy of the actors." Hunter v. State, 40 N.J.Law, 495, 538. See, also, State v. Doro, 103 N.J.Law, 88, 134 A. 611; State v. Kane, 77 N.J.Law, 244, 72 A. 39; Donnelly v. State, 26 N.J.Law, 601. The shooting here is not so classable. It was not an act immediately connected or identified wit......
-
Riley v. Weigand
...informing them that he was going to Camden on business accompanied by defendant, were held to be admissible. In State v. Kane, 77 N.J.L. 244, 72 A. 39 (Sup.Ct. 1909), conversations alleged to have been had by defendant the night before murder with a friend, arranging to meet him the followi......
-
State v. Baldwin
...Hunter v. State, 40 N.J.L. 495, 536--540 (E. & A. 1878); and as to statements of a defendant prior to the crime, see State v. Kane, 77 N.J.L. 244, 72 A. 39 (Sup.Ct.1909). Statements made by an accused after the criminal event present a different problem. Whereas his declaration prior to or ......