People v. Dixon

Criminal Law—Grand Larceny — Evidence — Declaration of Co-conspirator. — In a prosecution for grand larceny, where a witness had testified to facts sufficient to go to the jury tending to show a conspiracy between the defendant and other parties jointly charged with him in the commission of the same crime, further evidence of such witness as to a statement made by one of the other parties as a co-conspirator in the absence of the defendant, before the commission of the crime was complete, is admissible against the defendant.

Id. — Striking out Hearsay Evidence — Answer not Responsive. — Upon a prosecution for grand larceny, where a witness who has testified that he saw the horses alleged to have been stolen by the defendant, and upon being asked what he did with them volunteered the statement that he asked a third person whose the-horses were, and that he said they belonged to the defendant, such answer should be stricken out on motion, on the ground that it is incompetent and hearsay. The rule that where no objection is made to an interrogatory a motion to strike out the answer will be denied, does not apply where the answer of the witness sought to be stricken out is not responsive to the question addressed to him.

Id. — Evidence — Persuading Witness to Leave the Country — Acts of Third Parties. —’Upon such prosecution, evidence of a witness tending to show that the defendant persuaded and induced him to leave the country is admissible in so far as it shows the acts and declarations of the defendant, but evidence of acts or declarations of third parties in attempting to influence the witness, not in the presence of the defendant and unauthorized by him, is inadmissible.

Id. — Motive in Leaving Home — Cross-examination. — Where it has been shown, by the examination in chief of a witness for the prosecution, that the defendant induced him to leave the country for the purpose of escaping the effect of his evidence as a witness at the trial, it is proper, upon cross-examination, to ask him if the reason he left at that time was not on account of his father, and it is error not to allow such question to be answered.

Id.—Declarations of Defendant — Efforts of Defendant to Secure Release of Another Party. ■— Where it appeared that, subsequent to the date of the alleged larceny of horses charged in the information, a relative of the defendant and several other persons were arrested for stealing horses in another state, and while in confinement, pending examination and trial, the defendant earnestly exerted himself in various ways in attemping to secure the release of one of them, the statements of the defendant, made to various persons at that time, that he had promised a large sum of money to secure the release of such person, and that he had made arrangements to break into the jail and get him away, were too remote to be admissible in evidence against the defendant, and tended to prejudice the jury against him.