Bookkeeper had been embezzling money for several years from Company. When Bookkeeper found out that an audit was scheduled, Bookkeeper decided to destroy the books so that her crime would not be discovered. One night after closing, Bookkeeper went to Company’s office building, spread gasoline around the office, threw a match on the gasoline, and ran out. Watchman, who was on duty at the office building, saw Bookkeeper start the fire and called the police. Detective was the first person to arrive on the scene.
Detective immediately asked Watchman, “Is anyone in the building?” Watchman exclaimed, “No, only Bookkeeper was in the building. I saw her spread gasoline, light it, and take off in a new silver convertible, license number 123.” Detective put out a bulletin over the police radio to apprehend Bookkeeper, wanted for arson, who was last seen driving a late model silver convertible, license number 123. Officer heard the bulletin, saw the car and stopped it. When Officer approached the car, he saw an empty gas can on the front seat next to the driver. Officer placed the driver, who was later identified as Bookkeeper, under arrest and seized the gas can.
Bookkeeper was indicted for arson. Prior to trial, Bookkeeper’s attorney timely moved to suppress the gas can on the ground that Officer did not have personal knowledge of the events that had occurred at the office building and therefore did not have probable cause to arrest Bookkeeper or to seize the gas can. After a hearing at which Detective and Officer testified to the above pertinent facts, the court (1) denied the motion. After jury selection, Prosecutor informed the court that Watchman had died, but that Prosecutor would introduce Watchman’s statement through Detective’s testimony. Bookkeeper’s attorney objected on the ground that this would violate Bookkeeper’s right to confront a witness against her. The court (2) allowed Detective to testify as to what Watchman had told him.
After the prosecution rested, Bookkeeper took the stand. Upon completion of her direct examination late Friday afternoon, over Bookkeeper’s attorney’s objection, the court granted Prosecutor’s application to adjourn the trial until Monday to commence the cross-examination of Bookkeeper, and (3) directed Bookkeeper not to discuss her testimony with her attorney over the weekend because she was still under oath.
Were the numbered rulings correct?
No comments:
Post a Comment