State v. Sargood
| Decision Date | 03 December 1907 |
| Citation | 80 Vt. 412,68 A. 51 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. SARGOOD. |
Exceptions from Bennington County Court; George M. Powers, Judge.
Eugene Sargood was convicted of attempting to poison certain persons, and brings exceptions, and petitions for new trial. Exceptions overruled, and petition for new trial dismissed.
Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, WATSON, and HAZELTON, JJ.
W. R. Daley, State's Atty., O. M. Barber, and F. C. Archibald, for the State. Batchelder & Bates and Daniel A. Guiltinan, for respondent.
The statement given in the opinion in State v. Sargood, 77 Vt. 80, 58 Atl. 971, will serve as a sufficient statement of the case now before us, both as regards the theory of the state and what its evidence tended to show. The offense charged in the first case was the poisoning of certain colts, and the offense charged here is an attempt to poison Sanford Hicks and his wife. The state claimed to connect the respondent with each offense by a motive and purpose which included both. The relation of the two cases is such that the decision in the former case sustaining the admissibility of evidence of an attempt to poison the Hickses is authority for now holding that evidence of the poisoning of the colts was admissible in this case.
The court received in evidence the record of the respondent's conviction on the charge of poisoning the colts, held that it was conclusive proof of the fact, and excluded testimony offered by the respondent to show the contrary; to all of which the respondent excepted. These rulings were correct. With some exceptions not material here, a judgment in a criminal case is admissible and conclusive evidence in another criminal case against the same defendant as to any fact determined by the judgment. 1 Green. Ev. § 537n; Commonwealth v. Evans, 101 Mass. 25; Commonwealth v. Ellis, 160 Mass. 165, 35 N. E. 773; Mitchell v. State, 140 Ala. 118, 37 South. 76; 103 Am. St. Rep. 17, and note. See State v. Adams, Claimant, 72 Vt. 253, 47 Atl. 779, 82 Am. St. Rep. 937. Judgment that the respondent take nothing by his exceptions.
The petition for a new trial is based in part upon the affidavit of the former wife of the respondent, who has procured a divorce since his conviction, and has thus become a competent witness. It is apparent that her evidence is not newly discovered in the proper sense of the term. It is evidence that the respondent knew of, but did not have because it was not available. If within the rules applicable in such cases, the respondent should have moved for a postponement of the trial until the desired testimony could be made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Goss, 97021
...was dicta, as is the case in United States v. Colacurcio, 514 F.2d 1, 6 (C.A.9, 1975) (see dissenting op. p. 329, n. 13). State v. Sargood, 80 Vt. 412, 68 A. 51 (1907), involved an evidentiary ruling regarding the admissibility of a prior criminal conviction for poisoning animals in order t......
-
US v. Levasseur, 86-180-Y.
...of paternity in an earlier conviction precluded the defendant from relitigating the issue in a subsequent prosecution); State v. Sargood, 80 Vt. 412, 68 A. 51 (1907) (permitting the conviction of the defendant for poisoning horses to serve as conclusive evidence of certain facts in a later ......
-
Gutierrez v. Superior Court
...(Compare, e.g., Commonwealth v. Evans (1869) 101 Mass. 25; Commonwealth v. Ellis (1892) 160 Mass. 165, 35 N.E. 773; State v. Sargood (1907) 80 Vt. 412, 68 Atl. 51 [allowing preclusion] with People v. Goss (1993) 200 Mich.App. 9, 503 N.W.2d 682. See generally 147 ALR 991; Comment, The Use of......
-
State v. Ingenito
...in subsequent robbery trial); State v. Braskett, 10 Ohio Op.2d 497, 162 N.E.2d 922 (Ct.Com.Pleas 1959) (paternity); State v. Sargood, 80 Vt. 412, 68 A. 51 (Sup.Ct.1907) (determination that defendant had killed colts by poisoning their well precluded relitigation that defendant had poisoned ......