Dutton v. Territory of Arizona

• Decision Date: 02 April 1910
• Docket Number: Criminal 279
• Citation: 13 Ariz. 7,108 P. 224
• Parties: WILLIAM T. DUTTON, Defendant and Appellant, v. TERRITORY OF ARIZONA, Respondent
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

108 P. 224

13 Ariz. 7

WILLIAM T. DUTTON, Defendant and Appellant, v. TERRITORY OF ARIZONA, Respondent

Criminal No. 279

Supreme Court of Arizona

April 2, 1910

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the First Judicial District, in and for the County of Yuma. John H. Campbell Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Wupperman & Wupperman, for Appellant.

John B Wright, Attorney General, for Respondent.

The indictment is sufficient, the offense being alleged in the words of the statute. "An indictment can safely and sufficiently charge a crime in the language of the statute." Hinds v. Territory, 8 Ariz. 372, 76 P. 469. The judge was within his powers when he exercised his discretion in putting questions which will bring out the truth on points not made clear by the examination of counsel. Looney v. People, 81 Ill.App. 370.

"The trial judge violates no rule of procedure by putting questions to witnesses on their direct or cross-examination." 12 Cyc. 539; McGinnis v State, 31 Ga. 236; Long v. State, 95 Ind. 481; State v. Spiers, 103 Iowa 711, 73 N.W. 343; State v. Green, 36 La. Ann. 185; Commonwealth v Galavan, 9 Allen (Mass.), 271; State v. Hargroves, 104 Tenn. 112, 56 S.W. 851; Malcek v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. 14, 24 S.W. 417; Yanke v. State, 51 Wis. 464, 8 N.W. 276.

OPINION

KENT, C.J.

-- It is complained that the indictment is insufficient. Our statute makes it a misdemeanor to keep a disorderly house or any house of public resort whereby the peace, comfort, or decency of the immediate neighborhood is habitually disturbed. Penal Code 1901, sec. 287. The indictment, specifying the time and the location of the house in the town of Yuma, charged the offense conjunctively in the language of the statute. The statute setting forth fully and without any uncertainty or ambiguity all the elements necessary to constitute the offense, an indictment so couched in the language of the statute is sufficient. Hinds v. Territory, 8 Ariz. 372, 76 P. 469; Killman v. State, 2 Tex. App. 222, 28 Am. Rep. 432; 14 Cyc. 495.

The only other question raised which requires notice is the alleged error of the trial judge in putting questions to the various witnesses; the contention of the appellant being that in the extent of such examination the judge invaded the province of counsel, and by such examination and its extent gave to the jury the impression that the judge believed in the appellant's guilt. The erroneous idea that the whole duty of the trial judge is performed if he sits as an umpire as it were, to see that the contest before him, in which he takes no part, is waged according to rule, is one that unfortunately has grown rather than decreased of late in this country, fostered as it has been by many and often unwise restrictive legislative provisions. The duty of a trial judge, particularly in criminal proceedings, is more than that of the umpire; it is primarily his duty in such proceedings to see that justice is done both to the man accused of crime and to the people, his accusers. Therefore, when in such case the judge is satisfied that the facts or the truth are not being elicited by the questions of counsel, and the witnesses show a disposition to evade direct answers, it is not only his right, but it is his duty, to...