Stearns v. Smith, 99 A.2d 340, 149 Me. 127 (Me. 1953)

Stearns v. Smith, 99 A.2d 340, 149 Me. 127 (Me. 1953)

Much of the evidence centered about a diagram or 'chalk' drawn on a blackboard by a police officer. There is testimony[149 Me. 130] so often found of a 'street here,' and 'skid marks there.' The diagram was not introduced in evidence. The record of a trial with its transcript of testimony, exhibits and photographs, cannot include the 'chalk,' not introduced in evidence, which ends with the use of an eraser. No more can the 'chalk' be restored by an appellate court on study of the record, assuming, which is not the case, a duty to attempt such a difficult and unnecessary task. The party who brings his case forward has the burden of submitting a sufficient and complete record. In the instant case, if the decision rested upon consideration of the 'chalk' and the evidence of 'heres' and 'theres', the exceptions would necessarily be overruled. A simple plan, introduced as an exhibit, to which the evidence of places, often vital in a trial, may be related, has a value for the record far greater than a 'chalk.'

    • Related Articles

    • T.H. Leland v. D.R. Leonard, 112 A. 198, 95 Vt. 36 (Vt. 1921)

      The value of photographs and photographic enlargements of questioned signatures and documents is everywhere recognized. [95 Vt. 38] It is attested by this Court in Rowell v. Fuller's Estate, 59 Vt. 688, 10 A. 853. They must be properly verified, to ...

    • State v. Smith, 540 A.2d 679 (1988)

      Day in the life videotape admissible; notwithstanding mood music. Also, testimony by therapists was not cumulative

    • Gioielli v. Mallard Cove Condominium, 658 A.2d 134 (1995)

      Inadmissible because no evidence as to when photograph was taken or its relevance. Booker v. Stern, 563 A.2d 305 (1989). The time a photograph was taken goes to the weight to be given it, not its admissibility. State v. Smith, 540 A.2d 679 (1988).

    • Gioielli v. Mallard Cove Condominium, 658 A.2d 134 (1995)

      Inadmissible because no evidence as to when photograph was taken or its relevance. Booker v. Stern, 563 A.2d 305 (1989). The time a photograph was taken goes to the weight to be given it, not its admissibility. State v. Smith, 540 A.2d 679 (1988).

    • State v. Hardy, 489 A.2d 508 (Me. 1985)

      The results of experiments are admissible if they are conducted under circumstances which bear a "substantial similarity" to those surrounding the event placed in issue at trial. See Sucrest Corporation v. M/V Jennifer, 455 F.Supp. 371, 385 n. 22 ...