Case Name: State vs. Walton T. Virden
Court: Delaware Court of General Sessions
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1922-06-28
Citations: 32 Del. 32
Docket Number: 
Parties: State vs. Walton T. Virden.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 32–33

Head Matter:
State vs. Walton T. Virden.
(June 28, 1922.)
Harrington and Richards, J. J., sitting.
Robert G. Houston, Deputy Atty-Gen., for the State.
Daniel J. Layton and James M. Tunnell for accused.
Court of General Sessions for Sussex County,
June Term, 1922.

Opinion:
Harrington, J.,
delivering the opinion of the Court:
It is well settled that the testimony of a deceased witness in a criminal case, given at a former hearing of the same case is ad missible in evidence for the defendant on the ground of necessity, the parties and the issue being precisely the same. The objection of lack of opportunity to cross-examine the deceased witness is met by the fact that the state had full opportunity to cross-examine him when he testified at the former trial. Stephen's Digest on Evidence, 107; Chamberlayne's Hand Book on Evidence, 642; Wharton's Criminal Evidence, vol. 1, § 227, 228; Underhill's Criminal Evidence, § 261; 8 R. C. L. (Criminal Law) § 209; Bishop's New Criminal Proc. § 1195, and 1196.
In this state such evidence has already been held to be admissible in civil cases. Kinney v. Hosea, 3 Harr. 397. See also Rogers v. Rogers, 6 Penn. 267, 66 Atl. 374.
The evidence is therefore admitted; whether it would, however, be admissible if offered by the state, might present a different question.