State v. Norton
Citation | 151 Me. 178,116 A.2d 635 |
Parties | STATE of Maine v. Earl NORTON. |
Decision Date | 01 September 1955 |
Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
Lewis I. Naiman, County Atty., Gardiner, Joseph R. Campbell, Augusta, for plaintiff.
Niehoff & Niehoff, Bernard R. Cratty, Waterville, for defendant.
Before FELLOWS, C. J., and WILLIAMSON, TIRRELL, WEBBER, BELIVEAU and TAPLEY, JJ.
On exceptions and appeal. The respondent was indicted under provisions of Sec. 6 of Ch. 121 of R.S.1944 (now Sec. 6 of Ch. 134 of R.S.1954) for taking indecent liberties with his stepdaughter, she being of the age of fourteen years. He was tried at the June Term, 1954 of the Superior Court for the County of Kennebec. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The respondent was sentenced to a term of two years in the Maine State Prison.
During the course of the trial the respondent took exceptions to the admission of testimony and to the refusal of the presiding Justice to grant a mistrial.
The respondent seasonably filed a motion for a new trial, which motion was denied, whereupon an appeal to this denial was taken.
Exception 1.
During the course of the trial the prosecutrix testified in behalf of the State and during the course of her direct examination she was asked the question:
whereupon the attorney for the respondent noted an objection. The record of the case speaks in the following language:
'Mr. Niehoff: I object.
'Mr. Campbell: If Your Honor please, I press this on the basis that any conduct of the complaint of the same nature prior to the event would be admissible evidence.
'Mr. Campbell: If Your Honor please, I am referring to State v. Berube, 139 Me. 11, 26 A.2d 654, holding the testimony of acts of the respondent of earlier happening than the offense charged in an indictment committed on the person named therein as the victim of the alleged crime is admissible to show the relationship between the parties.
'The Court: The question is admitted.
'Mr. Niehoff: May I have an exception?
Attorney for the respondent argues that an answer to the question is not admissible because the crime involved is not the type where intent is a part of the crime, while the prosecutor takes the position that an answer to the question is admissible to show the relationship between the parties.
In the Berube case respondent complained as to the admission of testimony that the female child named in the indictment was permitted to testify to previous acts of a similar nature to the offense charged. In the case of State v. Berube, 139 Me. 11, at page 14, 26 A.2d 654, at page 655, the Court said:
'In the instant case we have no exception to the charge nor could one have been taken, since the testimony was admitted only for the purpose of showing the relationship between the parties, for which it was entirely proper.'
State v. Williams, 76 Me. 480; 167 A.L.R. 621; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 691(a), p. 1161.
Exception overruled.
Exception 2.
A girl fifteen years of age and a schoolmate of the prosecutrix testified for the State and during the course of her testimony she was asked by the State's attorney:
whereupon an objection was made by defense attorney, who said:
'Mr. Niehoff: I want a ruling because if it is allowed I shall ask that it be stricken and the jury be instructed to disregard it.'
The presiding Justice sustained respondent's objection, ordered the question and answer stricken from the record and instructed the jury to disregard the question and the answer. The jury was then excused and, in its absence, counsel for respondent moved for a mistrial. The motion was denied and to the denial of the motion the respondent took exceptions.
Concerning mistrials, in State v. Hamilton, 149 Me. 218, at page 234, 100 A.2d 234, at page 242, the Court said:
'The ordering of a mistrial is discretionary with the Presiding Justice and no exceptions lie to his refusal unless that discretion is abused.'
State v. Rheaume, 131 Me. 260, at page 261, 160 A. 877:
The presiding Justice when objection was made sustained it and caused the question and answer to be stricken from the record and promptly instructed the jury to disregard the question and the answer.
McCann v. Twitchell, 116 Me. 490, at page 493, 102 A. 740, at page 742:
'The great weight of authorities is in support of the rule that ordinarily the erroneous admission of improper evidence is cured, or so far cured as to be no longer a sufficient ground for a new trial, by being withdrawn or struck from the record and an instruction given to the jury to disregard it entirely.'
State v. Kingsbury, 58 Me. 238; State v. Fortin, 106 Me. 382, 76 A. 896.
There appears from the record no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge.
The respondent takes nothing on this exception.
Exception 3.
The State's attorney on cross-examination of the respondent examined as follows:
Before this last question was answered, counsel for respondent interposed an objection, after which the last question 'Has your wife ever had to call the police?' was withdrawn. Counsel for respondent then objected that the questions preceding the last one, having to do with being drunk on week-ends, abusing wife and giving her a black eye, were 'prejudicial, irrelevant and immaterial to this case.' The Court then stated 'We will let the questions stand at this time, with the understanding if they do not appear relevant we will take it up again.' The respondent excepted to this ruling of the Court, thus bringing into issue the materiality and relevancy of the testimony. The respondent had previously testified that everybody in his household seemed to be happy and that none of them had ever complained to him. Subsequent to the testimony of the respondent, there is testimony by his wife that she and her husband, the respondent, had been drinking beer at the home; that she and her husband had an argument and that she had left the house; that Chief Grant had been required to go to the Norton home on several occasions because of Mr. Norton's drunkenness and, finally, in the statement made by the prosecutrix, which was admitted as an exhibit, she said that her mother was afraid because the respondent had threatened her mother's life.
The Court's ruling was to the effect that if these questions did not appear to be relevant as the case developed, their admissibility would be reconsidered. No reconsideration was ever made so it is proper to assume that these questions and answers became relevant and material in the Court's mind.
Relevancy and materiality of testimony rest in the sound discretion of the presiding Justice. Rawley v. Palo Sales, Inc., 144 Me. 375, at page 380, 70 A.2d 540, at page 543:
McCully v. Bessey, 142 Me. 209, 49 A.2d 230.
It can be further said that according to the record, the respondent suffered no prejudice by the admission of these questions and answers. It is so well recognized that exceptions do not lie to admission of testimony unless it is prejudicial that it is unnecessary to cite any authority on this point.
There is no merit in this exception.
Exception 4.
This exception is based on the refusal of the presiding Justice to allow a motion for a mistrial. Counsel for the respondent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Sanborn
...all prejudice, if any, resulting from the statement * * *' State v. Fortin, 106 Me. 382, 384, 76 A. 896, 897. See, also, State v. Norton, 151 Me. 178, 182, 116 A.2d 635. In the instant case as always the Respondent's constitutional guaranty against double jeopardy was a security which had t......
-
State v. Brown
...by some rule or principle of law. State v. Northup, Me., 318 A.2d 489 (1974); State v. Eaton, Me., 309 A.2d 334 (1974); State v. Norton, 151 Me. 178, 116 A.2d 635 (1955); State v. Hamilton, 149 Me. 218, 100 A.2d 234 The disputed questions on cross-examination went to the involvement of the ......
-
State v. DeLong
...offense admissible to show relationship between parties in prosecution for indecent liberties with a minor); State v. Norton, 151 Me. 178, 181, 116 A.2d 635, 636-37 (1955) (same); State v. Seaburg, 154 Me. 162, 163-78, 145 A.2d 550, 551-59 (1958) (same). Cf. State v. Bennett, 117 Me. 113, 1......
-
State v. Rowe
...light of their observation of the witness on the stand. State v. Baron and Hickson, 1939, 136 Me. 516, 8 A.2d 161; State v. Norton, 1955, 151 Me. 178, 187, 116 A.2d 635. We have painstakingly examined the whole record of the evidence, notwithstanding appellant's noncompliance with required ......