Ball v. State, Criminal 801
Decision Date | 05 June 1934 |
Docket Number | Criminal 801 |
Citation | 33 P.2d 601,43 Ariz. 556 |
Parties | FLOYD BALL, alias JACK DELANEY, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Howard C. Speakman, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Mr Marshall W. Haislip, for Appellant.
Mr Arthur T. La Prade, Attorney General, and Mr. John Francis Connor, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
The appellant, Floyd Ball, alias Jack Delaney, was informed against by the county attorney of Maricopa county for the crime of burglary and upon a trial was convicted and sentenced to the state prison. He has appealed upon the grounds that the court committed error in its rulings on the admission of evidence and in the rejection of evidence.
In the examination of the prosecuting witness William Lawhorn by the county attorney, it was shwon that he and his brother were the owners and operators of a garage located at 209 East Van Buren Street, Phoenix; that on May 22, 1933, at about midnight, appellant brought his automobile into the Lawhorn garage and told the witness the clutch would not work; that he examined the clutch and adjusted, or attempted to adjust it; that he noticed that "the adjusting bolt had been screwed out with someone's hands, someone's fingers," and so advised the appellant and those with him; that his charge for his services was 50 cents; that there were four persons in appellant's party, two women, the appellant and another man; that the other man handed the witness a $1 bill, out of which to take change for his labors; that he went into the garage office and not finding any change in the register went across the street for change; that when he returned with the change appellant and his party had driven away; that when he was across the street he saw appellant in the office; that upon an examination of the cash register he discovered $8 had been taken therefrom. The prosecuting attorney asked the witness this question:
"When you examined the clutch to see what was wrong with it, did you notice anything in particular about that adjusting bolt there?"
It was objected to on the ground that it was both leading and suggestive. The objection was overruled, whereupon the witness answered:
"I found that the bolt had been unscrewed by fingers, because it was oily and there were hand prints on the bolt."
The general rule is that questions that put the answer into the mouth of one's witness in chief should not be asked. 28 R.C.L. 589, § 182. The above question does not suggest the answer desired, nor does it call for a conclusion of the witness. It calls for an answer of "yes" or "no." It is not suggestive or leading and the witness was properly allowed to answer it. The answer was only a repetition of what the witness had stated a moment before. At all events, the answer was a fact constituting a part of the transaction, a detail...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McKinney
..."general rule is that questions that put the answer into the mouth of one's witness in chief should not be asked." Ball v. State, 43 Ariz. 556, 558, 33 P.2d 601, 602 (1934) (emphasis added). As UDALL notes, "[w]hat is desired is that the trier hear what the witness perceived, not the acquie......
-
People v. Bornholdt
...v. Mitchell's Administratrix, 276 Ky. 671, 675--676, 124 S.W.2d 1025; Lamb v. Woodry, 154 Or. 30, 38--39, 58 P.2d 1257; Ball v. State, 43 Ariz. 556, 559, 33 P.2d 601; cf. Steen v. Burleson, 268 App.Div. 815, 49 N.Y.S.2d 210; see, also, 3A Wigmore, Evidence, § 1042 (Chabourn rev., 1970); 1 U......
-
State v. Hines, 5099
...it was made under circumstances rendering it incumbent upon the witness to, or be likely to, state such a fact. See Ball v. State, 43 Ariz. 556, 559, 33 P.2d 601, 602 (1934); Carroll v. Krause, 295 Ill.App. 552, 562, 15 N.E.2d 323, 328 (1938); Asato v. Furtado, 52 Haw. 284, 288, 474 P.2d 28......
-
State v. Simoneau
...Fla. 123, 27 So.2d 753, 756. This area is peculiarly a case for the principle that the trial court's determination controls. Ball v. State, 43 Ariz. 556, 33 P.2d 601; State v. Pierce, 59 Ariz. 411, 129 P.2d 916; State v. King, 66 Ariz. 42, 182 P.2d Appellant contends that it was error to al......