People v. Rader

[254]

VAN DYKE, J.

The defendant was tried for the crime of murder in the county of Mariposa, and was convicted of murder in the second degree. His motion for a new trial was denied, and he was adjudged to he imprisoned in the state prison at San Quentin for the term of twenty-five years. He appeals from the judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial.

Pour points are urged by the appellant on the appeal.

1. The first point made is, that defendant’s counsel was not permitted to pursue the cross-examination of one Dr. Gallison, who attended the deceased after being shot and up to the time of his death, to a sufficient length. The examination in chief of this witness occupies eight folios of the transcript. The cross-examination consumed seventy-six folios, when a recess was granted at the request of the defendant’s counsel, to enable him to consult physicians in order to frame his questions. After recess the cross-examination continued forty-four more folios, making in all one hundred and twenty. The re-direct examination covers thirty-eight folios, making on direct examination in all forty-six folios. The re-cross-examination covers one hundred and twelve, making in all two hundred and thirty-two folios on cross-examination. After endless repetitions the court remarked to counsel: “I don’t wish to interfere, but I will have to if this is continued. I have certainly given you great latitude in asking questions here, and I think you have gone as far as the court should permit you to do. You can take your exception. I will allow no more questions on that subject.

“Mr.

Sanders.—Well, you will allow us to take an exception.

“The

Court.—Certainly. I think the court must sometimes intervene and stop this kind of questioning.” We think under the circumstances the action of the court was entirely justifiable. “It is the right and duty of the court to expedite business by curtailing cross-examinations upon immaterial and irrelevant matters of inquiry.”

(People

v.

Durrant,