State vs. Arthur McGahey.
Opinion filed July 7th, 1893.
Redirect Examination of Defendant.
It is proper upon the redirect examination of a witness in a criminal case to permit him to state facts and circumstances that tend to correct or repel any wrong impressions or inferences that arise from the matters drawn out on cross- examination, and this rule is not changed because such facts and circumstances may be of such a character as to prejudice the defendant in the minds of the jury.
Harmless Error—Not Ground for Reversal.
An error of the court in ruling upon the admission of evidence that conclusively appears to have been innoxious, and could have worked no prejudice to the party objecting, is no ground for reversal.
Striking Out Testimony—Caution to Jury.
Where, in answer to proper questions, a witness volunteers incompetent and irresponsive matter in his answers, and which matter has but an indirect bearing upon the issue upon trial, and is promptly stricken out by the court, in the presence and hearing of the jury, on motion of opposing counsel, such action amounts to a withdrawal of such matter from the jury, and no duty rests upon the court, in the absence of any request thereunto, to further caution the jury, either at that time or in the general charge, to disregard such matter.
Prosecution Need Not Call all Eye Witnesses.
No duty rests upon the prosecution in a criminal case to produce and swear as witnesses for the state all the eyewitnesses to the transaction, where the testimony of the witnesses called, or some of them, is direct and positive, and apparently covers the entire transaction.
Remarks of Counsel for State—Caution by Court.
The control of the remarks of counsel for the state during a criminal trial is a matter largely in the discretion of the trial court; and where the objectionable remarks are of a general character, and such as would not be likely, under the attending circumstances, to prejudice the cause of the accused in the minds of honest men of fair intelligence, the failure of the court to strike out such remarks, or caution the jury against them, is not such an abuse of discretion as will constitute error.
Cross-examination—Collateral Matters.
While a party to an action cannot object to questions asked a witness upon cross-examination, tending to elicit proof that the witness had been guilty of practices that would affect his credit before the jury, yet, where such matters are purely collateral to the issue, the answer of the witness is final, and it is not proper to introduce contradicting evidence.
