People v. Thomson

Garoutte, J. The appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and now appeals from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial.

At the trial he admitted the killing, and insisted that the homicide was committed in self-defense.

The prosecution, against the objection of defendant, offered in evidence a United States patent to the tract of land upon which the deceased was killed, for the purpose, ms the district attorney stated, of showing that “he was killed upon his own land.” There was no question of defense of property or habitation involved in the trial. [509]The plea was a plea of self-defense, arising from a threatened personal injury; and it was entirely immaterial and foreign to the issue on trial whether the deceased was killed upon his own land or upon the land of another. Such fact could have shed no possible light upon the question of murder or justification for the commission of the homicide. While the assignment of error has merit, owing to the views we entertain upon other matters we do not deem it necessary to decide the question as to whether the error is of such a character as to justify a reversal of the judgment.

The witness Norris was an important witness for the prosecution. Upon cross-examination, he testified that “ shortly after the shooting he went to the scene of the homicide, and took his rifle with him.”

Q. “ What did you take your rifle with you for?”

An objection to this question was sustained, upon the ground that it was not cross-examination.

Upon redirect examination, the witness stated: “I am sorry the defendant got into that trouble.” And defendant’s counsel then asked him the following:—

Q,. “And you expressed your sorrow by going out toward the house with a Winchester rifle?”

An objection was sustained to this question, upon the grounds already stated. These rulings of the court were erroneous.

It is elementary law, supported by all authority, that the state of mind of a witness as to his bias or prejudice, his interests involved, his hostility or friendship toward the parties, are always proper matters for investigation, in order that truth may prevail and falsehood find its proper level. If the inner workings of a witness’s mind are actuating his testimony, and the workings of that mind are brought forth to the light and held up in full view before the jury, results will be obtained much more in accord with truth and justice than though the witness’s testimony is weighed and measured by his words alone. If the feelings of the witness Norris were so hostile toward the defendant that when he went to the scene of