State v. Lee
| Decision Date | 31 July 1893 |
| Citation | 13 Mont. 248 |
| Parties | STATE v. LEE. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Missoula county; Frank H. Woody, Judge.
Virgie Lee was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals. Reversed.
The other facts fully appear in the following statement by DE WITT, J.:
The appellant, the defendant, appeals from a judgment rendered upon a conviction on the charge of grand larceny. Upon the trial the prosecuting witness was absent. His name was Charles Peterson. He was the person who owned the money which was the subject of the larceny, and from whose possession it was taken. The state offered testimony to show that said Peterson was not within the jurisdiction. John Nelson, a witness for the state, produced a letter, which he identified as the handwriting of Peterson, written from San Francisco, in which said Peterson stated he was going to Australia at once, and would sail before the letter would reach its destination. The state also produced a subpoena for said Peterson, with its return to the effect that said witness could not be found. The court then held that the absence of the witness was sufficiently shown to allow the admission of the evidence given by that witness against the defendant upon a preliminary examination upon this charge, held by the magistrate. The testimony of this witness Peterson was not taken in writing before the magistrate, J. M. Evans, Esq. He testified that he was the magistrate who held the preliminary examination of this defendant charged with the offense of grand larceny, for which she was then being tried. He testified that this witness Peterson testified on that examination; that the defendant was present in court at the time, and was represented by counsel. Evans said that he had a general recollection of the evidence given before him by the witness Peterson. The court then allowed said Evans to recite from his memory what the witness Peterson had testified before him, said Evans, on the preliminary examination. The testimony of Peterson, which Evans so recited, was as to the material facts of the larceny. To all these proceedings the defendant, by her counsel, duly objected that the testimony given against defendant was hearsay testimony, and should not be narrated by the witness Evans, but that the defendant is entitled to be faced by the witness Peterson. The objections were overruled. The testimony was given as above recited, and the defendant was convicted. The allowance of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Budge
...of the court through procurement of the accused. Collins v. Com., 12 Bush. (Ky.) 271; Owens v. State, 63 Miss. 450; State v. Lee, 13 Mont. 248, 33 P. 690; State v. Houser, 26 Mo. 431; Finn v. Com., 5 Rand. (Va.) 701; State v. Wing, 66 Ohio St. 407, 64 N. E. In Massachusetts and New Hampshir......
-
Hobbs v. State
...Collins v. Com., 12 Bush (Ky.) 271; Pitman v. State, 92 Ga. 480, 17 S. E. 856; United States v. Angell (C. C.) 11 Fed. 34; State v. Lee, 13 Mont. 248, 33 Pac. 690; Owens v. State, 63 Miss. 450; Motes v. U. S., 178 U. S. 459 et seq., 20 S. W. 993, 44 L. Ed. 1150. Some of the cases hold that ......
-
State v. Vanella
...these are rights which he may invoke. They are for his benefit, and, if he insists upon them, they cannot be denied him (State v. Lee, 13 Mont. 248, 33 Pac. 690), but, being in the nature of privileges, he may waive them; and, the defendant in this instance having done so, he cannot now com......
-
State v. Vanella
...these are rights which he may invoke. They are for his benefit, and, if he insists upon them, they cannot be denied him (State v. Lee, 13 Mont. 248, 33 P. 690), but, being in the nature of privileges, he may waive and, the defendant in this instance having done so, he cannot now complain. S......