Knapp v.

State, 79 NE 1076 (1907)

Facts.

Knapp (D) killed a deputy sheriff in Hagerstown who attempted to arrest him and
D claimed that he murdered in self-defense. People around the town had told D
that the deputy killed the old man. The prosecutor then showed that the deputy did
not kill the old man, that the old man died of natural causes. D was convicted of
murder and he then appealed, claiming that the real issue was whether D had heard
that the deputy had killed the old man.

Issue.

Is evidence relevant of a particular item if it tends to support whether proof of that

evidence would assist to resolve the to a central issue of a case?

Held.

Yes, the judgment is affirmed.

D was correct in asserting that the real issue was whether or not D had heard that
the deputy had killed the old man. Yet their may be some evidence that does not
have a direct connection to the trial. In this case D claimed that he had heard that
the deputy killed the old man. If in fact the deputy had not killed the old man, it is
less likely that someone would have told D such a story. People have a tendency to
tell the truth.

The problem for the prosecutor was that he could not show what D had, or had not,
heard. Obviously, there are multiple ways prosecution could handle the case. He
attacked the problem by showing that the deputy had not killed the old man, which
in turn meant that somewhere between the truth and D’s testi-mony there was a
person who was not telling the truth. This, coupled with D’s being unable to
identify the informant, was his claim of what he heard was less probable. No error
having been shown, therefore conviction is affirmed.
Discussion. The court shows that admissibility of evidence in this case indicates
that if even a slight inference can be made, then the court should admit the
evidence of a collateral fact. In actual practice, the courts tend to weigh the value
of the evidence against the amount of time that will be consumed by its
introduction. The more there is a direct connection to the case; the court will be
more liberal.