(Download) "State v. Kacar" by Supreme Court of Montana ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State v. Kacar
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 06, 1925
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 59 KB
Description
Criminal Law ? Homicide ? Dying Declarations ? Admissibility in Evidence ? Preliminary Inquiry ? Excusing Jury ? Discretion ? Order of Proof ? Information ? Leave to File ? Procedure. Criminal Law ? Information ? Leave to File ? Motion to Quash ? Proper Refusal. 1. Where a deputy county attorney appeared in open court and orally moved for leave to file an information presenting at the same time a written request signed by the county attorney which was filed immediately upon granting of the request, the court properly overruled defendants motion to quash the information based upon the ground that leave to file had been granted on oral request, contrary to section 11624, Revised Codes of 1921. Same ? Information ? Motion for Leave to File ? What Sufficient. 2. A motion by the county attorney for leave to file an information need not set forth with technical accuracy the facts constituting - Page 270 a formal charge, nor, since the statements made therein are made under his official oath, is it necessary that the motion be accompanied by an affidavit. Same ? Appeal ? Rules of Supreme Court ? When Court will Excuse Infraction. 3. While willful or negligent disobedience of the rules of the supreme court in the preparation of the transcript and brief may result in refusal to consider either, and ignorance will not generally serve as an excuse for their infraction, they are designed, inter alia, to promote, not to hinder or impede, justice, and may be relaxed in a criminal case where it is apparent that error prejudicial to defendant was committed and counsel appointed to defend him were inexperienced in appellate procedure. Same ? Dying Declaration ? Admissibility in Evidence. 4. The statement made by decedent the day before his death, upon being questioned by the witness whether he (decedent) thought he would live, that he was going to die from the wound inflicted and that he was shot by his wife, held admissible as his dying declaration. Same ? Dying Declaration ? Admissibility ? Preliminary Inquiry ? Excusing Jury ? Discretion. 5. The trial court may in its discretion excuse the jury during the preliminary inquiry as to the admissibility of an alleged dying declaration, and if it does so and the declaration is admitted, the entire matter covered by the preliminary inquiry must be again canvassed in the presence of the jury, which must then pass upon its weight and credibility. Same ? Dying Declaration ? Order of Proof. 6. Failure of the defendant to offer testimony in contradiction of a witness deposing to a dying declaration at the time when its admissibility was under consideration and before its admission, as she might have done, did not deprive her of the right to offer it in her case in chief. Same ? Dying Declaration ? Open to Impeachment. 7. A dying declaration is open to impeachment in any of the modes by which the testimony of the declarant could have been impeached had he been alive and testifying under oath, and the witness who testifies to such a declaration as having been made to him may be impeached in like manner; hence defendant charged with the murder of declarant was improperly precluded from showing that the deposing witness was not at the hospital where decedent died at the time at which the alleged declaration was said to have been made. - Page 271
 "State v. Kacar" by Supreme Court of Montana ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}