Court Opinion

ID: 9559103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:22:42.115087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:48.793629
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN,
(dissenting).
I do not agree that it was error to receive in evidence the testimony given by Fulp at the first trial. My views on this subject are set forth in my dissenting opinion in the case of State v. Storm, 127 Mont. 414, 265 Pac. (2d) 971, and need not be repeated here.
*431However, there is this difference between this case and the Storm case. In the Storm case due diligence was used to locate the absent witness but his whereabouts at the time of the trial was unknown and hence his testimony was not obtainable. Here the witness Fulp was known to be absent from the state. That brings the case squarely within section 93-401-27, R. C. M. 1947, which in part provides: "Facts which may be proved on trial. In conformity with the preceding provisions, evidence may be given upon a trial of the following facts: * * * 8. The testimony of a witness deceased, or out of the jurisdiction, or unable to testify, given in a former action between the same parties, relating to the same matter. * * And section 94-7209 declares: "The rules of evidence in civil actions are applicable also to criminal actions, except as otherwise provided in this code.”
The case of State v. Ortego, 22 Wash. (2d) 552, 157 Pac. (2d) 320, 159 A. L. R. 1232, gives an exhaustive review of the authorities supporting the right to produce the testimony of a witness without the jurisdiction given at a former trial. Other cases are cited in the note in 159 A. L. R. 1240. And see the additional authorities cited in my dissenting opinion in the Storm ease.
I think the judgment should be affirmed.