Legal Research on Criminal Law Section 121

    t-.1r.

icrr-
icrr-
se<l
lIte,
tis
tlis-
tlr e
nch
herl
) ItS
)l'e-

eks
0ny
)lt l'-
rtt t't
'(- ly
)aI'-
the
vit-
'om
rcts
)se-
.lttu'

I I-

osc
the
thc
ate
by
olt-
Ry.

qo
t) r)

)m-
.L.
will
csi-
' trr
ith-
lny
ir-

on-
ex-
re-
rar-
)m-
,in
tus,

eti-
for
ed;
ibi-

ANNO.-PER]\{ITTING DI.J POSIl'IONS IN CRIIIINAL CASES. 377

ANNOTATION.
Constitutionality of statute permitting state to take

ositions in crinrinal case.
lCriminal Larv, g 121.1

or use in evidenee dep-

I. In gencral, iJ77.
II. I'articul:rr statutes as_ affectetr by right of confrontation, s7g.III. Sixth Fedcral Amendment, 3g0.

I\r. Due process of lau,, 881.
_!'. llqual privileges and irnmunities, Bg1.
VI. Ex post I'acto laws, 881.

-VII. View excluding depositions, BgZ.
VIII. Texas decisions, il83.

1

I
a

I
1,'
t

l. I rt 11t'ttt't'rrl ,

This annot:rtion, as intlicated bv it.c
t.itlt, is mainll, confined to a consiriera-
tion oi the t:onstitutionitlitv o1 such
statutes as h:rvc lrcen cnacted proi,id-
ing for the taking of rle'positi,ons of
rvitncsses against delcndants itr crimi-
nal cases; a conrplete r.xamination of
the true extent trrrd me:rning of consti-
tutional grraranties conct,rning the
c()nfrolltation ol ttitncsst,s is, ther.e-
fole, not here attempterl. It mav be
ttotcfl, 5o,"uver, in r.ef crcnce to the
general scope of constitrrtiontl provi-
sions guaranteeing tho light of a.-
cuscd persons to bc conflonted rvith
thc n'itnesses aguirrst thenr, that the
usc of a deposition b1'the state, upon
the trial of an accuscd persorr, has not
usually been regarded as an invasion
of thc light of confrontation, if the
witncss himsclf is not :n'ailahle, anil
i! it appears_ th.at, in !hc taking ofEc
dpposition, the defendant was con-
f3ontcrl-ivith the witness anA gircn a
p.roper opportunity to cross-cxamine.

The Federal Suprcme CoLrrt his rie-
clared that at(common larv, the right
existcd to read thc rleposition of a r,vit-
ness upon the tr.ial of a dcfendant, if
thc deposition hacl bcen takcn rvhei-
the defend4nt u'as Dlesent ancl when
hi-s counsel had had an opportunity to
cross-examine, proof bcing made, to
the satisfaction ol the cotrrt, that the
witncss rvas, at the time of the trial,
dead, insane, too ill cvcr to be expect-
cd to attend thc trial, or. liept arvay by
tht' r:onnivance of thc clcfenilant. \test
v. Louisiana (1904) 19,1 tI. S. 258, 4g
L. ed. 965, 24 S. Ct. 6ir0 (a{Erming
(1903) 109 La. 603, 33 *qo. 618),

The argument, in support of stat_
utes permitting the usc of depositions
against defendants in certain c:rses of
ner:cssity, thcrefore, is tlrat thc consti_
tutional right to confront rvitnesses
is mercll' a general right sLrbject to
exceptions. In a<,t.orclance with that
algument it might indeed be supposed
that it, is thc right of conl'ront:rtion
as it existetl in common larv rvhich isguaranteed by constitutional provi_
siotts, so that, in case of thc abscnce
of a rvitness from thc trial, his deposi-
tion could at most only be ,.od in
those eases rvher.e at common larv the
presence of the rvitness would have
been exeused,-that is, pcrhaps only
in tl.re cases of death or permanent ili_
ness of the witncss. See the reported
case (Srnrn Ex REL. Dnrw v. Suaucu_
NESSy (\f i^s.) ante, 36g). It seems,
horvever, that tvhat is meant by the
courts of most jurisdictions is that,
u'here thc defendant has onee eon_
fronted a rvitness, he has no consti_
tutional right to confront him upon
the trial if, for any reason based on
p.ractir:al_necessity, and indicated bythe legislature, the presence of the
rvitness is excused. In other rvords,
with some exceptions, the authorities
in genelal take the position, frankly
stated in Wigmore on Evidence, 2d ed.
S 1397, p. 101, that ,,the rule sanc-
tioned b1'the Constitution is the hear-
say rule as to cross-examination, rvith
all the exccptions that may lcgitmate_ly bc found, developed, or 

.'created

therein." Sec 8 R. C. L. Criminal Law,
S$ 41 et seq., and generalll, the casei
cited in this annotation.

f':i
. .t i

,"r:"
(t'r

irc,,rl 
.,y*i

''s1{

t,rr i-f '

fr SF:.r
,,t t;*,

,r l: |t1*,



;

I

,l
ri

I

I
i
1

I

378 Ai\,IUIilUAr\ LAW IiUI,ORTS. ANNOTATITD. Ie0 A.L.R.

I
i
t

II. I'artirrtltrI slorlll(,s rts tt1].ctlt,tl tty
t'ir1lt I ttI t,ort lt,ttnlatiotr.

Yt'ilh thc oxrcl)lion of cer.luin Texas
decisions (see suitd. VIII. infra), in
overy inst:rnct_' rvher.c the <luestion Ir:rs
been specificalll. plcsented, it hus
lrccrr helrl lhat lr sl:rtrrte pcl.lniltir,g
the state in a criminal casc to talie
depositions and rrse thcm in cr.irle rrco
is not urrconstitrrtional as rlenying lhe
defendant the right to conl'ront the
lvitnesses agaiust him.

In the rcportcd case (Sr,rrr,) rix tt.;r,.
l)Rr;w v. SrrAUGrrNnssy (\1,is. ) urr1r,,
368), it u'as hcld thrit ilre r;tttute
there under. r:onsiderltirrn tvlts not irr-
valirl as denyiug the constit ul ional
right of tlre defendant to mcet the
witnesses face to face; the court cit_
iutl no case in .rvhich such a statute
had been upheld, but 1rlacin11 its rle-
cision rrporr tlre brcrarl grountl lhat tltc
t'ule of cotrfrontation is suflir,ierrtlv
conrplied wit,h under thc Constitution
if tlre accrrse,d uret the rr'itnesst:s fl1,,"
to facc at l.he time of ilreit. testif.ving
and l.hcn h:rtl the opportunity of cross_
exantining thcnr.

In Ncrv Yor.k the r.i1-1irt of :rn lrccused
persoll to be confr.ontcrl n'iilr the u.it-
nesses against him is cxpr.csse<l in ilre
statutcs,:rnrl not in thc Constitutiorr,
lutd -r's accordingly srrl-l.icct to repcal
or altelation b1' the lqrisllrtrrre. Iion.-
ever, t:crl,aiir Nrtl Yot'li rlt:t,isions :rs
to thc scope of such right mur. lrc Ircle
not i c c<1.

In I'cople v. Irish (lg9l) 125 N. y.
136.2(; N. Ii.:119, it u'ls Jreld 1lrat. as-
suming thc prot'isions of tlre I,.eder.:rl
Constitution to apply to prosecutious
in strrte courts, tlre intlotluctiou in er.i_
(le11ce, pursuant t.o statutc, of the tes_
timr,nl- of a tvitness tlrkerr before ir
magistrate upon a ltrelintinarl- exami_
nlrtion :rnd r.educcd to the form of a
deposition, rlid not violate thc consti_
trrtional right of the accused to be con_
f rontcd with the rvitncsses :rgainst
him, rvhere, ;rs specilied by thc statrrlt,,
dcf cndant was 1)rescnt and thc rvil _

ness was cross_examincd by h iscorrrrscl. The court saitl that thoconstitutiorral provision concernirrg
t,he rig)rt, to conl'ront n,ilnesstis
was not intended to sccure to lJro
accused pcrson the right to be

confronted lvith thc rvitnesses againsthim upon his Ilnal trial, brrt toprotect hinr agaillst ex palte affi-
davits and depositions taken in his ab-
seltce, as u,as flcquerrt,ly the practir:e
in llnsland at an trirly clate, and thatit rvas never l.c'gal.rlod as an invasion
of thc fundamental rights of an ac-
cuserl pcrson to read depositions upon
his trial, if, at sornc stage of his case,
he harl been confrotrtcd tviilr thc ivit.
llcsses lrgainst hinr rtrd git.en ilre op-poltrutitv of cross-cxamining ilrem,

In I'cople v. \\,illianis (1gg5) :iI IIun(N. Y") 5lG, thr: roui.t cleclarcd thai
cvcll lr Iiter:rl r:orrstruction of such a
cr-rnstitutional provision as the Sixth
Amendment to thc l.ederal Constitu.
tir.ru does not lequir.c that the accusedlre conf rontttcl rvith the u.it,,.sses
against him upou llrc trial of thc in-
tlictnrcrrt itself, but mercly th:rt, at
some stage in the progrcss of the
crimirrul procceding, he shall 1," .on.
flr-rnted tvith the u,itnesses anrl af.
1'ortled thc opportrrnity of cross_cxam-
inirrg them.

. Arr:ordingly it has been rept,rrtedly
lrekl in New york, that thc-u litten
rlcposition of a u'itrrcss u.hich is taken
bcfore a nlrgir;tlrtc, upon a pre lim-
irrar'1,, g1.rlnlrtion, in ilre p"".",r.0 oillrc dcl't,rrdaut, u.ho has, eiiher irr per.
sr.rn ol. lr1' counscl, cross_cxamirrt,rl, orlr;rrl :rn oltpor.trrnity to 

"r.u*._"*,,ruinlthc- u,ittress rnty, pursuant to statutr
rutrd colsistentl.y u,ilh l.he right ol.conl
I'r'orrtation, bc admitted iri e"i.t,,nce
:rgainst the act:user.l, upon its being
strtisfactoril.y shown to the c,,urt aithe time of thc trial that the rvitness
is rlcatl or insaue or cannot, with duediligence, be found withjn tfrc state.
Pcople v. Williarns (N. y.) .rp.u; ii*
l,Jo__u.-Irish (1891) 125 rV. y. t:ir;, Zi
N. IJ.319; Pcople v. eualey (1914) 2i0N. Y. 202, 104 N. U. 188, anu.'C^r. ,
1916A,1108.

__.So, in People v. Werblow (1924) l2lIlisc. 204, 205 N. y. .Supp. 6tZ, i;;;; ,

helrl that lr statute giving the prn.eci.
ti-on the right to take the aclioriii-oruof witnesses uporl .,,-rnir.itu, ,iiit ,the ltrivilege in the <Iefendant of ..ors. ,

cxtrnrinirrg the u.itrresses or sul,mittinl
t'r'oss-irrter.rogalolies, is n,lt int.,,rrsisi i
cnt with the statute granting tfrc rlsili .

I

;"i
t
i

:1

i,i
,I+

'' t
-{;"fnju"

l*i;-:i'

J.:', i

,t
I
!
.J

il'l
LI

i,.?;+. k;..



a

lf
A.I,.R. t
,*"i,r*t { .o- -A**O.-PIIn}'IITTING 

DEposITroNS rN cRn{rNAL cASFrs. :l?0rga inst I <
,irt to I. ."' ll confrontatittn,. since ttre substance leave is given, the rlefendalt must en-;. "* I ,\ of strch right is the l.ivilege of crl.rss- te' of .e..r'a .,1,i;';;;;;;;iil#;;:1,:;:
his ab- f, "f .*l:,J:l,:r: 

- ositions ot rvitlesscs residing out ofractiee $" ' ,,ln.Tr:, v. _P-eoplc 
(1895) 21 Colo. tlre st:rte may bc tulien and.erA u,r-t,"-

rrl that I)^ ll9, 40 .Pac.775, the (lulolarlo stlrtrrte hrtlf <-,f the stiite, r,clative to the sanrervasion ,P -5i.in 
question;lvhrlh closely follou'crl ns mltter," docs not cr-rntrayene those\sr ;) 1?, a.t..2, of the Col<,r.iido bonstituti.. p'o'isi.n. nr lr"i,ralriiL i"ri.i,,iiil"',1an ac-;';;;; .ni ; +q -;;;::g1i^tlat, *'lic.e a wit,ess is lrroviding th"t :#"j:ff.:fltl'tjiffi:

is cise, ^','' 
; ) conrmitted to the couttty jail 1'or thc shall have the right to rneet the *.it-

n. ";ii- 
/ &t i S ptrrpose o.f permitting lne tating of nesses face to face and to havc com-

the op- / *,0 ta- his depositiort, the same shall be til<en pulsory process'for obtainin; irtt;;;;-hem. ,{ly y bysome judgeof thesupreme,district, es in ils favor; the court dcclaring
l; I{unJy' h\ or county coult, rvithir, fire clays, at that inasmuch as the statute under
,A tfrai , hv i 8ome. convenient place by the judge consideration conferred ,,pon-un-r.-.i,.h-; iP' '. ll'1,:ll:':;:tJll':l-*:.:i1rr:::.ll: :i':d pcrson a right-;; ;'ir;";;;"
,"'i',itf; ,l'' i accused and the attorney prosecutin-g at_ common law, namely, the right to;";;i;;: -.lr' ^ 

fol.the people shall have t'easonable take deposition.t in a foreisn ir"irail-,;.';; ,.*I^l ::llT'^:il l,,j-Lot .plovid.ed for the tion, there lva,c no invasion of hisLcc,ttscd,\*r{' !rvu' dtru rLrrLrrul'p|u\tue(l ror' llle tlon, there lvas no invasion of his
i;;;;; \S S' , ::Jl_s ".1 

such depositions. in evirlcnee rights, tt e s,it rtance of the matter
;'i;;,.r"#'*:'" *;;T;i

hat, at t y) :tJl:^t:t^_.:],1]l ,."t, he pt'oeure^<l. .An a conditionat right rvhich, 
"t h'i, ;i;;-l1'',fj kN' :!j::,i"1 to the introa,.ti", 

"i"" a.f_ ;;";;';;;1i,i':;ir*;',1lli ?,1#,.,},i,"j;
,; .; \ iP :i:":,1j"*:::l':1,:11.^1."-^i,,..,n.'l:n- sub.ject tottre con<rition impn,.,r.-hil;
"1 

-;,f- \'gf t]t9'urged trpon thc ground that thc ruling u.as acr,ortlingly made lr,"l--"

T I ,'.* ,i${J, 1._.1l ji,; ;i,,"1..."'i*,iriiii ;';''?;'J'T;;j;f'J;:'"r',*T.i,lTi,f:l

,,

xlii[l ,_]'' *f .n 
-' ifliffl#il:],',',:X"?i;1".,?;:":]'tt,:,1 :*:,",:: 

i;,r,J,i",n.. specided bv the

;,.;ii;- { ., 
'i 
n' |]T":lil::I-|"^:.1^":l,lf_"!.\\n 'irt,t subdivision B or g 686 or the cari-

4

: .t,v'.
dri

,rerrrrr- \ < ! ' r) tomcetthe rvitnesscs against him face fornia p;;;i C.iil irrrrr:: |i""i?i:\)

j::i"r,d,r d lh';;:,mr,:1!!li:l:X,t!*lil fli'i:1.r1*x,i_*n:jl;:*L:l,rlttetl, or Y J! : mitting the tating oI depositionr'to be the rvitncsscs against him in the pres-(rrmrne' l, , ,, I.od- upon tte trial, unrier certain dc_ ence of the cou*t, exccpt that rvherestat.rrte I
ot. con_ I ,"dd fincd limitatious. It rvas therefot

uirlence , ^^'dF declared that no do.bt co,ld bu untotu the charge has been preliminarily ex-

o_:,n ; S [H:;nftl"T'i:lilljl;t*:t,r iili::i#i";;,1,,i]Tilt.ttit..*fi:,
i:ii:"3j qs T ii;.;i'"";i;:;i;; u- bv question anrr ansrvei' in the pres-

ith rlue *r",t ' In Anderson v. State (188e) 8e Ara. ;l';.:lJl:.t;l':l.]i'j;,'"il"oiT jJi,H:

l:llt "u$ \ ifi,l{"rf,?1;J,'#'i;:':t'#:u,i'li*l U*'U*lt'ff *:#*HJ;;
iii'r?B $l- r. ,' ifi.l,:,:,";T";ii'"*";i**',11.;iT.;-i;1.:l; 3f";?'l"T#'.1T,fii,1$ i:i:ii:1".li
n. Cas. ^S : \ l1:i:::l t:1. lnt in violation of the insane, oi.cannot, after rlue rliuseneo,

ty / i 4!ilr-"r" Constitution,,.pr'ot'idinB that lre found within the statc.,' The'Cali_
24) LzB / I everyone- chalged rvith an intlictable folnia C""riiirii,,,r, S 13 of a.ticlc l,

**x; {E\p:.a*fr ;1i$,:t;T'ililnl';x,li;,.'JfI'",';'J; ilTi:iJx* ;*ff+l]"'fJ1;tHil
.r, rvith rn Builer v. state (1884) e? rnd. lintx:.'.""";:::i ;f jl;"1,1i1"."ff'l;ir1
f cross- 378, it was held that a statute provid- nesses in eriminal cases, otrrer ilran
mitting lng that a dcfendant may, by leal'e of cases of homicide, rvhen there is rea-
:,onsist- eourt, take the depositlotrs of rvitness- son to believe thlt the rvitness, from
,c right :l Hl''i$":i'fl,l't;L';"i;l:,1' J::fl i:ll,lTir:.,,:;Tr cause, 

'uiri 
noi'ui-

{g

,.i

FttFr(FrFr'
r



I -lr

.i
380 eiltpnIcaN I,Aw REPORTS, ANNoTATED. [90 A.L.R.

It is held that constitutioual pro-
visiorr rvas intended as an enltrlge-
ment of the porvel to use dcpo,ritions
agaiust a deferrtlant, antl wus not de-
signed to take a'w'ay the l)owel. *'lrich,
pursuant to slutute, had long Loctr et-
ercised in Calil'oruia, of taking in an1,'
criminal case tire deposition of a rrit-
ness orl the preliminarl' ex:rnrination
when the defetrdant is preserrt aud has
the oppoltunity, personalll'or by coun-
sel, of cross-examining the rvittress;
and, further, that such constitutional
plovision does not prevent the use of
the deposition upon the triril, tr'here it
is satisfactorily shorvn to the court
that the witncss is dead ol insane, or
cunnot, aftel due diligence, Lre found
within the state. People v. Oiler
(1884) 66 Cal. 101, 4 I,ac. 1060. Ac-
cordingly, in California, notrvithstand-
ing the constitutional provision aliove
quoted, the deposition of a vritness
taketr by question and aus,iver uporr
the preliminary examinatiou irr the
presence of the defendant, who in per-
sorl or by counsel is given the oppor-
tunity to cross-examine, may be used
in the trial cases of homicide (People
v. Chin Ilane (1895) 10ll (lal. 597, 41
I'tc. 697; I)eople v. Sielp (l8g?) 116
Cal. 2{9, 4.9 I'ac. 88; People v. CrLdy
(1897) 117 ('al. 10, 48 I'ac. 908; I,eo-
lrle v. Clalk (19t)7) 151 Cal.2(X),90
I'ac. 549), ol otlrer cases (Ireolllc v.
Oilcr'(1884) 66 (ral. 101,4 Pae. 1066;
People v. I'11 ler' (1tt99) 126 Cal. lt79,
58 Pac.904), upon its beirrg satis-
factorily sh<-rrvn to the court thlrt the
conditions specified by the statute
:rbove quoted exist. In cases, other
than homicide, the Califr-rrnia lcgisla-
ture may provitle for the taking by the
state of depositions de bene esse un-
del certain circurnstances. Cal. Const.

"s 
13, Art. 1, supra; People v. Oiler

(Ittit4) 66 Cal. 101, 4 Pac. t0ti6; I,eo-
ple v. Sieryr (11J97) 116 Cal. 2,10. 48
l'ac. 88, and People r,. CIark (lg0Z)
151 Clal. 200, 90 Pac. 549, sut)r:r.

In many jurisrlit.tions, cases rrot orr
tht.ir facts within this annotation may
l.re found in which the constitutionlrl
right of confrontation is so constr.uecl
as to leave littlc rloubt tltat thc cout.ts
clecirling them u,ould hold valicl stat-
utes lrlovicling for the taking of clepo-

sitions by the prosecution in cases of
ttccessity. See 8 R. C. L. (ir.iminal
l,arv, 

"sg 
41 et scq. On the othel hand,

the t'oults r.r1'sevelal of tlre states
havc sr.r explessecl themselves as to
intliclte that surh statutes u,oLrld not
be legalded bv thern as corrstitutional
(sce subd. VII. irrfra).

I II. SixtlL lie'dtt'ul,4tttt,tttlttttttl.
There is no tloubt that, inasmuch

:rs the Sixth Ametrdment to the lfed-
elul Constitution. providing thrt, in
all criminal prosecutions, the accuseti
slrlrll etrj<-ry the light to be confr.onter.l
rvith the witnesses against hirn- ap-
lrlics urrly to trills in F ederul suur.ts,
a state statute ploviding for ilre tak-
irrg r.rf depositions in crimirral cases
cunnot be regarded as invllid by re-a_
son of violating that amendment. Ry_
an v. People (1895) 21 Colo. 119, 40l're.775; State v. White (1900) ?
Idaho. 150, 61 Pac. 512; State v. Jones
( 1t372) 7 Nev. 408; People v. l'ish
(1891) 125 N. Y. 136, 26 N. Ii. li19;
I'colrle v. Werblorv (lg?4) 12;:i nIisc.
201, 205 N. Y. Supp. 617; people v.
Williams (1885) i]5 Hun (N. y.) bt6;
\\rest v. Louisiana ( 1904) 194 t.l. S.
2511, .18 L. ed. 965, 24 S. Ct. 0ir{).

All citizens, of whatet'er I'uce or
color', are set:ured the tight to be con-
.l'r'ontctl rvith the rvitnesses agirilrst
thcnr jn every l)r'osecution in the }.etl-
eral courts. Ilrrt the state ma1,, con-
sistentll, rvith tht' F ecleral Constitu-
tiou, nroriify that privilege in . all
prosccutions in stlrte courts, pror.ided
that cqual pr.otcction and due l)rocessof lurv be not deuietl. People v. l|ish
(1891) 125 N. Y. 136, 26 N. Il. 319;
West v. Loui$iana (190.1) 194 U. S.
258, 48 L. eO. 96it, 24 S. Ct. 650.

So far as the Irederal Constitution
is concelned, it is entirely compotent
for a state to make provisiorr lor the
usc of depcrsitions agailtst accused
pel'sons "in cer.tuin cases atrd rrntler
certain circumstances.,' State v. Jones
(1872) 7 Nev. 40S.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the
Federal Constitution concernint{ the
plivileges or imrnunities of citizens of
the Urrited States and the securing to
them of due process of law cloes not
have the effect of making ilre Sixth

I
i
t
I

i
l
I

I
I
I

t

I
f
i

I
I
I

I
I
I,
I
I
t
k r,;
lui"_t\ ,/
L/'(
i

l

;ll
\.I

:tlIt
!,;



384 AMT]RICAN LAW RIIPORTS, ANNOTATED. [90 A.L.R.

'1
I

I
I
r
I

L.
i-

I
I

1

I

"J

ruled, the court holding that testi-
mony taken down on the examining
trial pursuant to statute, after the
defendant had had an opportunity of
cross-examination, was admissible up-
on the trial in case of the death of
t},e witness..

And in Hobbs v. State (190t3) 5:|
Tex. Crim. Rep. 71, 76, 1LZ S. W. 309,
the, Porch Case was followed, as it
wds in the following cases: pratt v.
State (1908) 53 Tex. Clirh. Rep. 281,
109 S. W. 138; Nixon v. State (1908)
53 Tex. Crim. Rep. 1125, 109 S. W, 981,
and Somers v. State (1908) b4 Tex.
Crim. Rep. 475, tt} S. W. bBB, 180 Am.
St. Itep, 901.

However, in Kernper v. State (1911)
63 Tex. Crim. Rcp. I. 188 S. \V. 10?5,
the statute in question-rvhich pro-
vided in effect that the deposition of
a witness taken before an examining
court or a jury of inquest and reducerl
to writing and certified according to
larv, in cases where the defendar.* u,as
present rvhen such testimony was tal<_
en :rnd had the privilc.ge afforderl him
of cross-cxamining the witness, might
be read in evidence against him rvl-rcre
the rvilncss residcs out of thc state,
or, since the taking of his depositiun,
hqs dicd or removed bel.ond the lirnitsoltne state, qr is prcvente! from :rt-
ter}ling eourt throufh the act .,, ,,g"u-
cy of defendant, or where the witness,
bI reason of age or bodily infirmitv,

cann-ot attend-was held unconstitu-
ti_onall tFe coull-follorvins ttie CIine
Case (I896) 36 Tex. Crim.'Rep. liO,
36 S. W. 1099, 37 S. W. ?22, 61 Am. Sr.
Rep. 850, supra,-declaring that thr:
depositiort r-,f such a rvitness might not
be.usctl rrgainst a dcfcndantU 

" GiK
ony c'aie, no matter how it had lt-d '

taT-en d<rlvn or preserved, and without
regartl to whether or not the defend-
ant had been present or affordecl an
opportunity to, cross-examine, or had
actually closs-examined, the rvitness.

But in Ilobertson v. Slate (1911) 6:t
Tex. (r.irn. Rep. 216, I42 S. w. 5l:].
Ann. (lts. I913C, 440, the question w:rs
again cxamined at great length, u,ilh
the rcsrrlt that the_ court expressll.
olernrlcrl the Kemper anrt Cfine Casr*.
s.!lpl4: 14 qU !q!gC qI.:r.rii]errstert

In Young v. State (191?) 82 Tex.
Crim. Rep. 257,199 S. W. 4Zg, and in
Russell v. State (1921 ) 89 Tex. Crinr.
Rep. 572, 232 S. W. :109, is found lan-
guaue supporting ther rule of the Rolr-
ertson (lase (1911) 6ll Tex. Crim. Iieyr.
216, 1.12 S. W. 5113, r\nn. Cas. 191:t(,,
440, supla, and it thercfore seems thitt,
the present Texas rule is that the lcg-_
is.lature may provide for the usJ.,
against an accuserl p€r.sou, of the rlqp-
osition of a rvit-! ess takcn_befo." ,i,
cxalninirrg court or a jrrr.y of in,lue*.+
and rerlrrcerl to tvriting, in those cascs
whct'e tlre slatutc irr ,lrrcsUon in K^lm-
p-CI'v. State (19IO 6;J Tcx. Cr.im. Rcp.
I,=fS& S. W.-1025, supra, so provirlcd.

w. w. A.

I
I
I
>,

PACIIIIC F'INANCE CORPORATION
V.

SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTy et at.
' Califotttia .Srrlr,'crrre Court _ Octolter ;j, lgBJ.

(- Cal. -,25 Pac. (2d) 988.)

Dismis'sal,-$ 18 - Pleading, $ 549 - cross compraint 
- delay as ground.1. The fact that an action has become sub.ieci to dismissar"dd;;-,r"t

brought to trial within five years after rlefen,iort ni"a-r,l.r-*.*u1 floes ,otentitle plaintiff therein to a dismissal of a cross.o*pt*iri-upon which is_sue was joined within the live-year period.
lSee ut,notatiott ott th,is questton'beghtttittll on ltage BgZ.1

Pleadirtg, s 539 - cross complaint - thc-defenrlant in the original actio, i:rdistinct nature of. enatrtua- iiy- .i"iri|"tr' bring ilto tlr.z. cross actions bv means of which oiigi,rai iilie;ii;"oiiier rerated mar_