[DOWNLOAD] "State v. Mott" by Supreme Court of Montana ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State v. Mott
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 26, 1925
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 57 KB
Description
Criminal Law ? Gaming ? Evidence ? Witnesses ? Cross-examination ? Rebuttal ? Detectives ? New Trial ? Newly Discovered Evidence ? Proper Denial. Criminal Law ? Witnesses ? Cross-examination ? When Proper. 1. In a prosecution for permitting gambling to be conducted on the premises of defendant, where his wife had testified that while certain games were permitted to be played, there never had been any gambling permitted, cross-examination as to the manner in which the games were conducted and as to her knowledge of what took place was proper. Same ? Rebuttal and Impeachment on Collateral Matter ? Rule not Applicable, When. 2. The rule prohibiting rebuttal and impeachment on a collateral matter is confined to matters brought out on cross-examination, and has no reference to answers brought out on examination in chief. Same ? Evidence of Other Offenses ? Duty of Court to Caution Jury. 3. Where facts brought out on a criminal trial have a tendency to show the commission of other offenses than the one under investigation, the court should instruct the jury as to the purpose for which such evidence might be considered and that the defendant could be convicted only on proof of every material element of the crime charged. Same ? Gaming ? Physical Condition of Premises ? Evidence ? Admissibility ? Rebuttal. 4. Defendant charged with having permitted gambling on his premises having testified that there had never been a buzzer or alarm system in his place, contradicting one of the states witnesses, testimony in rebuttal by a former owner of the place that there had been at one time such a system was proper. Same ? Evidence of Other Offenses ? Instructions. 5. Since evidence of the commission of offenses like the one for which defendant is on trial is admissible for the purpose of showing that the act complained of was a part of a general plan or system for evading the law, an instruction that the jury might consider such testimony for that purpose was unobjectionable, - Page 307 coupled as it was with other instructions that defendant could be found guilty only of the crime charged in the information. Same ? Detectives as Witnesses ? Evidence ? How to be Viewed ? Not Proper Subject of Instruction. 6. While it is proper to inquire of persons employed to detect crime as to their employment, the manner and amount of their compensation and their interest in the outcome of the prosecution, for the purpose of attacking their credibility as witnesses, such matters cannot be made the subject of an instruction commenting on the manner in which the jury should view their evidence, but advantage of such facts may be taken in argument. Same ? Offered Instruction Covered by Other Instructions ? Refusal Proper. 7. Refusal of an offered instruction to the effect that the jury could convict defendant only after finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge of the particular game charged to have been played on his premises and with such knowledge permitted it, was not error, the same subject having been fully covered by other instructions. Same ? Evidence of Other Offenses ? Instruction ? Modification Non-prejudicial. 8. Modification of an offered instruction that permitting a gambling game to be played on his premises on another occasion than the one for which defendant was on trial would not warrant a verdict of guilty, by adding the words "but evidence concerning same may be considered by you as defined" in the instructions, held non-prejudicial. Same ? New Trial ? Newly Discovered Evidence ? Proper Denial. 9. Alleged newly discovered evidence held insufficient to warrant the granting of a new trial, it appearing to have been merely cumulative and impeaching, and not so material as probably to produce a different result upon a retrial.