Opinion ID: 2340265
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Fifth Exception

Text: In the absence of the jury the respondent offered to prove certain incidents at his home prior to the present case to establish that he had a sound reason for carrying a gun for purposes of protection. As the respondent's counsel said, I think there is a big difference with a man who leaves with a gun and had no reason to do it, had no reason to be concerned as opposed to one who did have cause to be concerned with the safety of himself and his family. I offer it for that purpose only.    Mr. Rubin: The testimony of Chief Thompson was that, that is in this case on this point, that he heard a noise and left the house as a result of hearing that noise, went out as a result of that noise. He testified to that. The Court: I will exclude it for the present. At a later period of the trial the Justice pointed out that similar testimony had been admitted and the testimony in question of the witness taken in chambers was read in open court to the jury with no objection whatsoever by the respondent's attorney. It sufficiently appears in the absence of objection that the respondent's attorney agreed to have the evidence read by the reporter and not given in person by the witness. Accordingly nothing remains of the fifth exception. The sixth, seventh, and eighth exceptions arose on cross-examination of the respondent.