State v. Roe
| Decision Date | 24 February 1911 |
| Citation | 19 Idaho 416,113 P. 461 |
| Parties | STATE, Respondent, v. FRED. ROE, Appellant |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
CRIMINAL LAW - PROOF OF PENDENCY OF ACTION - SECONDARY EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.
(Syllabus by the reporter.)
1. In a prosecution for conspiracy to influence a witness in a criminal action to leave the state and remain without the jurisdiction of the court, where it appears that the prosecuting attorney omitted to prove by primary evidence the pendency of such criminal action at and prior to the time the alleged conspiracy was entered into, but witnesses testified from their personal knowledge that such action was pending at that time, and counsel for appellant made no objection to the admissibility of such testimony on the ground of its being secondary evidence, such testimony is competent evidence of the pendency of such action.
2. Held, that there is sufficient evidence in the record in this case to establish the fact that there was an action pending in the district court at and prior to the time that appellant and his codefendants conspired to secure the absence from the state of a witness in such action.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Washington County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.
Prosecution for conspiracy to secure the absence of a witness in a criminal action. Defendant convicted and appealed. Judgment affirmed.
Affirmed.
Frank Harris, for Appellant, files no brief.
D. C McDougall, Attorney General, O. M. Van Duyn, Assistant, and J. L. Richards, Prosecuting Attorney for Washington County for the State, cite no authorities on points decided.
The defendant, Fred. Roe, was charged by the information of the prosecuting attorney of Washington county with conspiracy, in the district court of said county, and was convicted, and appeals from the order overruling his motion for a new trial and from the judgment.
Briefly stated, the facts in this case are, that the defendant, and Dudley Evans and William Wall, a short time previous to July 20, 1910, were charged with the unlawful selling of intoxicating liquors to M. G. Morris. The complaint was regularly filed in the probate court of Washington county, a preliminary examination was thereafter held, and the defendant Fred. Roe and William Wall were held to answer to the district court upon said charge. Thereafter, and before the convening of the district court in and for said county of Washington, the complaining witness, M. G. Morris, left the state of Idaho, and went to Vancouver, British Columbia, where he was later found by the sheriff of Washington county, and brought back to said county, and jointly charged by the information of the prosecuting attorney, with Dudley Evans, Fred. Roe and William Wall, with conspiracy. A preliminary examination was held, and the defendants were bound over to await the action of the district court. Before the trial of the said cause, the defendant, M. G. Morris, upon motion duly made by the county prosecuting attorney, was discharged; and it appears from the record that the defendant Fred. Roe was separately tried upon said information charging him with conspiracy, and was convicted of the offense.
The only question submitted by counsel for the appellant is: Was the pendency of the action, wherein the state of Idaho was plaintiff and the appellant Fred. Roe and William Wall were defendants, established by competent evidence?
It appears from the testimony that during the trial of this cause several witnesses testified to the fact that at and prior to the time the appellant together with Dudley Evans and William Wall influenced the witness Morris to leave the state of Idaho, and to remain without the jurisdiction of the court, there was an action pending in the district court of Washington county, wherein the defendants Roe and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Baker
...v. Reed, 3 Idaho 754, 35 P. 706; State v. Schieler, 4 Idaho 120, 37 P. 272; State v. McGinnis, 12 Idaho 336, 85 P. 1089; State v. Roe, 19 Idaho 416, 113 P. 461; v. Challis, 22 Idaho 749, 128 P. 570.) Sec. 7878, supra , which provides that a view of the premises may be had when in the opinio......
-
Maw v. Coast Lumber Co.
... ... DEFECTIVE MACHINERY - ASSUMPTION OF RISK - MASTER AND SERVANT ... - NEGLIGENCE - QUESTIONS OF FACT - SUFFICIENCY OF ... EVIDENCE-EXCESSIVE DAMAGES ... (Syllabus ... by the reporter.) ... 1. An ... objection that the complaint does not state facts sufficient ... to constitute a cause of action cannot be reviewed upon an ... appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial ... (Citing Naylor v. Lewiston etc. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 789, 96 P ... 2 ... Secs. 4225 and 4226, Rev. Codes, empower the district court ... to ... ...
-
McLean v. City of Spirit Lake
...the defendant failed to interpose any objection to any part of her testimony on the grounds that it was secondary evidence. State v. Roe, 19 Idaho 416, 113 P. 461. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that the mere existence of books of account not admitted into evidence, renders othe......
-
State v. Chacon
...220, 61 P. 1034; State v. Moon, 20 Idaho 202, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 724, 117 P. 757; State v. McGinnis, 12 Idaho 336, 85 P. 1089; State v. Rowe, 19 Idaho 416, 113 P. 461; State v. Rigley, 7 Idaho 292, 62 P. 679; v. Marquardsen, 7 Idaho 352, 62 P. 1034; State v. Suttles, 13 Idaho 88, 88 P. 238; S......