LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES. PART I. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY OF GENERAL RULES. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. §1. Preliminary Suggestions. 2. What Distinguishes Criminal from Civil Evidence. ▲ Definitions from the Celebrated Field Code. ERRATA. Page 518-4th line from bottom should read "not have been possible, etc. Page 545-2d line from bottom should read “and value of the testimony as to independent facts, etc. Page 710-3d paragraph, 7th line should read an indictment for false pre tenses cannot be founded, etc. Page 748- 466, 2d paragraph should begin, offense must be," etc. "under the common law rule the L. C. P. CO. 1344 Indeed, it may be affirmed that criminal evidence umeis civil evidence merely in matters of specialized application; and the most minute investigation of our theme will merely disclose LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES. PART I. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY OF GENERAL RULES. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. §1. Preliminary Suggestions. 2. What Distinguishes Criminal from Civil Evidence. 4. Definitions from the Celebrated Field Code. 6. Observations on the Rules of Evidence. 9. Principals and Accessories. $1. Preliminary Suggestions. The object of all evidence under every scheme of jurisprudence that has ever been recognized as worthy of that name has been the evolution of truth in its entirety, subject only to the limitation that it must be relevant to the issue tried. It follows as an obvious corollary that the same rules that are designed for the development of truth in a civil action apply with equal force to a criminal case. A step further on will lead to the assertion that all evidentiary matter involved under such subdivisions as are comprehended in judicial notice, prima facie evidence, best and secondary evidence, hearsay, relevancy, etc., sustain the same relation in both classes of cases. Indeed, it may be affirmed that criminal evidence differs from civil evidence merely in matters of specialized application; and the most minute investigation of our theme will merely disclose the fact that our concern is with the modification, the deflections, the singularities,-the aberrations, if you will,-that experience in criminal prosecutions has engrafted upon the rule of civil evidence. It is to the study of these specialized applications that it is the design and import of this work to assist in directing. The foregoing paragraph, in the reasoning it contains, will be sufficient justification in the present work for the somewhat meagre treatment accorded to those great sub-headings of the general law of evidence which, by virtue of their apt and well recognized application to both civil and criminal evidence, have been accorded extended treatment in the volumes already before the profession. By means of this abridgment, it is hoped to bring the thorough treatment of the entire scheme of civil and criminal evidence within the compass of three volumes; and where an apparent deficiency exists in the treatment, let the critic investigate the entire text before proceeding to condemn. These remarks are especially pertinent in view of chapter 1, Civil Evidence. In the present volume most if not all the topics composing those chapters were carefully amplified under similar headings in volume 1, Civil Evidence, which will be found to supplement the examination here given in many desirable ways. § 2. What Distinguishes Criminal from Civil Evidence.What are the distinguishing characteristics between criminal and civil evidence? Is the line of cleavage so well defined as to warrant a separate treatment, and upon what lines should such treatment be extended? The appearance of this work will indicate at least the editorial view, which is accompanied however with the assertion that it is the weight of evidence that creates and maintains the fundamental distinction. This distinction is further emphasized by the fact that criminal prosecutions involve different applications of the law of evidence from those in vogue in civil cases, where the parties approach the contention indicated by the pleadings upon terms of proximate equality with perhaps a slight presumption in favor of the plaintiff, who having committed himself to specific allegations of injury is charitably presumed to be in a situation to prove his case. In criminal prosecutions, however, there is an antipodal relation between the primacy accorded to the state, with all the paraphernalia of the law to maintain its dignity and sustain its cause, and the alleged offender, often friendless and in penury; and always |