Skip to main content
· 2/13/1907

State v. Uzzo

Citations

  • 22 Del. 212
  • 6 Penne. 212
  • 65 A. 775
  • 1907 Del. LEXIS 11

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Homicide—Murder—Malice— Intent—Accident —Dying Declarations; Contradiction of—Evidence—Rule as to Six Witnesses to Single Point; Applies to Murder Cases—Reasonable Doubt.</p> <p>1. Certain testimony offered by the State held inadmissible, it being neither a dying declaration nor a part of the res gestae.</p> <p>2. It being uncertain and vague as to what time elapsed between the shooting and the conversation sought to be introduced, held inadmissible.</p> <p>3. A witness for the prisoner testified that at the time they took the deceased away and put her in the ambulance, she said to the witness “Godfather they are going to take me away; I am going to die. You 'take care of my children.” Held that any statement which the deceased then made as to how the shooting happened was admissible as a dying declaration. The same witness testified that the deceased said to him “ Godfather, Mike is not at fault, and I want him not to be arrested and to take care of the children.” Upon motion to strike out this testimony it was ordered that the part which referred to her desire not to have Mike arrested and to take,care of her children should be stricken out, but the part in which she said it was not the prisoner’s fault should remain.</p> <p>4. The defendant having put in evidence the dying declaration of the deceased, and the State being precluded from cross-examination as to such declaration, the State is permitted to contradict it by statements made by the deceased at or about the same time.</p> <p>5. Six witnesses testified that the deceased said the prisoner was not at fault and that the shot went off accidentally. A seventh witness was called and objected to under the rule. It was contended that the rule did not apply in a murder case. Held that there was no distinction as to the application of the rule, between murder cases and other cases; that only six witnesses could testify as to the one point.</p> <p>6. Murder, manslaughter and malice defined.</p> <p>7.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • affirming summary judgment for plaintiffs where uncontroverted facts establish doctor failed to advise plaintiffs of risks of surgery

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Pennewill

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.