People v. Shaw

Criminal Law—Purpose of Trial—Duty of Court to Avoid Error.— The purpose of a criminal trial is to discover and determine whether or not the defendant is guilty, and not merely to maintain at all hazards a theory of guilt, entertained beforehand; and it is the duty of the court to give the defendant a fair trial, according to the established rules of evidence, and to avoid error in respect of the rights of the accused.

Íd.—Cross-examination—Bias of Witnesses for Prosecution—Refusal to Inform Defendant-—Harmless Error.—It is legitimate, upon cross-examination of a witness for the prosecution, to show that, while he has informed the prosecution of his knowledge, he has refused to give any information to the defendant, for the purpose of showing the bias of the witness; but error in sustaining an objection to a question calling for such evidence is rendered harmless, where the witness, without further objection, answers the question fully.

Id. —Evidence Apparently Irrfjlevant—Porpose not Specified. —Where isolated questions are asked by counsel for the defendant, which are apparently irrelevant, immaterial, and aimless, and no purpose of the evidence is disclosed, it is not error to exclude the questions, although a relevant purpose might have been stated.

In.— Homicide—Cross-examination of Defendant’s Wife—Disposition of Pistol—Harmless Ruling.—Upon the trial of a defendant accused of murder, where it was admitted that defendant killed the deceased with a pistol, a ruling sustaining a question asked of his wife on cross-examination as to what she had done with the pistol with which her husband had killed the deceased, and her answer that she turned it over to one of her husband’s attorneys, could do the defendant no injury.

Id,—Adjournment of Trial—Discretion of Court,—The court may refuse to adjourn a trial from the middle of an afternoon until the next day, at the request of defendant’s counsel, where the circumstances show no abuse of discretion.

I».—Evidence—Willingness of Defendant to Surrender Himself— Advice to Contrary—Harmless Ruling. —Where there is no evidence or pretense that defendant attempted flight, he cannot be prejudiced by the exclusion of testimony that he went to a town for the purpose of surrendering himself immediately after the shooting; and that, acting on the advice of another person not to surrender himself there, he returned home, and waited for the officers to come after him.

Id.—Conduct of District Attorney—Evidence—Drinking of Beer by Defendant-—Visits of Attorney.—The action of the district attorney in offering to prove that the defendant was drinking beer on the day of the homicide, which offer was excluded as not proper cross-examination, and in asking the defendant how many times his attorneys had visited him, is not of sufficient importance to be seriously cons'idered as a ground of reversal.