Tamborino v. Territory of Arizona
| Citation | 64 P. 492,7 Ariz. 246 |
| Decision Date | 19 March 1901 |
| Docket Number | Criminal 142 |
| Parties | JOSEPH TAMBORINO, Defendant and Appellant, v. TERRITORY OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff and Respondent |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District in and for the County of Yavapai. R. E. Sloan, Judge. Affirmed.
Herndon & Norris, and G. H. Collins, for Appellant.
C. F. Ainsworth, Attorney-General, for Respondent.
This is a rehearing. The first hearing on appeal was in the January term, 1900, and judgment of affirmance was rendered by this court November 9, 1900, reported, ante, p. 194, 62 P. 693. The principal subject there discussed, and which was the question discussed upon the rehearing, was, Did the court commit error in allowing impeaching evidence against the statements of Stella Carroll, a witness for the defendant? We there said the question to be solved was not whether in fact Tamborino had shot Tovera, nor whether in fact Tovera had shot Tamborino, nor whether indeed either of them had been shot, but who had commenced the affray, or had it been commenced by Tamborino in such a way as to make the verdict of the jury of assault with a deadly weapon a correct verdict? Whether Tamborino had drawn his gun at the time the conflict commenced in such a way as to become the aggressor was an important inquiry. Stella Carroll was called as a witness for the defendant, was friendly to the defendant, and her evidence tended to show that Tamborino was not the aggressor. We still hold that her presence at the scene, her hasty departure, the fact of a shot being fired, and her evidence as to what she says she did not see, made it perfectly proper cross-examination to ask her if she did not make other statements about the matter, and, if she denied that she had, to show by other witnesses the statements she did make. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trickel v. Rainbo Baking Co. of Phoenix
...of the impeaching party to prove that he did make such statements.' Tamborino v. Territory, 7 Ariz. 194, 198, 62 P. 693, affirmed 7 Ariz. 246, 64 P. 492. See also, State v. Polan, 80 Ariz. 129, 293 P.2d 931. See generally, McCormick, Evidence, § 37. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, § The rec......
-
Tang v. Avitable
...waived any question of lack of foundation for impeachment. Cf. Tamborino v. Territory, 7 Ariz. 194, 62 P. 693, affirmed on rehearing, 7 Ariz. 246, 64 P. 492. The evidence was properly admitted for the purposes for which it was offered, and we see no merit to the claim of impropriety in the ......
- Ward v. Territory of Arizona