Hager v. State

• Decision Date: 05 July 1913
• Citation: 133 P. 263,10 Okla.Crim. 9,1913 OK CR 245
• Parties: HAGER v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

133 P. 263

10 Okla.Crim. 9, 1913 OK CR 245

HAGER v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

July 5, 1913

Syllabus by the Court.

Police court methods in the examination of witnesses in courts of record in Oklahoma will not be tolerated.

Great latitude should be allowed in the cross-examination of witnesses, and they may be interrogated in a proper manner with reference to any matter which may tend to affect their credibility, but they should not be asked questions which are full of insulting insinuations and intimations that they are guilty of some other crimes than that for which they are upon trial.

Where the record shows that counsel for the state in a prosecution of a person charged with crime has been guilty of conduct calculated to arouse prejudice or passion against the defendant and to prevent the accused from having a fair and impartial trial, a conviction had will be set aside, and a new trial granted.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

The doctrine of harmless error will not be extended to such an extent as to deprive a defendant of a fair trial.

Appeal from County Court, Pottawatomie County; Ross F. Lockridge Judge.

Montel Hager was convicted of giving away whisky, and appeals. Reversed.

S. P Freeling and I. C. Saunders, both of Shawnee, for appellant.

C. J Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

FURMAN J.

Appellant was prosecuted for giving away whisky; and, being upon the stand as a witness in his own behalf, was subjected to the following cross-examination:

"Q. You kept whisky at the camp ever since you have been employed haven't you? (Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, which objection was overruled by the court. Defendant excepts.) A. I have not. Q. Been furnishing the convicts whisky? (Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, which objection was overruled by the court. Defendant excepts.) A. I have not. Q. Do you remember the occasion about two weeks ago of holding up the Indian agent out by the slaughter pens and drawing your gun; you was drunk and made him get out of your way?

By S. P. Freeling: The defendant objects as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.

By the Court: Objection overruled. To which ruling of the court the defendant excepts.

Q. You had a camp out there didn't you? A. Where was it? Q. Out there by the slaughter pens at that bridge across the Canadian river, between here and Shawnee? A. No, sir; I didn't. Q. The county had a camp there? A. Yes, sir. Q. You had charge of it? A. No, sir. Q. You was there as guard? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who had charge of the camp? A. G. T. Redding. Q. You don't remember seeing the Indian agent come along there last fall? A. I don't think I did. Q. Was you ever drunk? A. No, sir; I don't think I was, not at the bridge. Q. Was you ever drunk any place else when you were on the road as guard?

S. P. Freeling: Defendant objects as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.

The Court: Objection overruled. To which ruling of the court the defendant excepts.

A. I have drank some. Q. Along in the winter, didn't you drive one of the county's teams in town and stop in front of the court house and fall off the wagon? You was so drunk you fell down there?

S. P. Freeling: Defendant objects as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.

The Court: Objection overruled. To which ruling of the court the defendant excepts.

A. I don't know. Q. You was so drunk you don't know? A. I don't remember. Q. If you had done it, you would have remembered it, wouldn't you? A. Well I don't know. Q. You don't know whether you did or whether you didn't?

S. P. Freeling: Defendant objects as repetition.

By the Court: Objection overruled. To which ruling of the court defendant excepts.

A. I couldn't say. To the best of my recollection I didn't. I wouldn't answer positively. Q. How long have you been working for the county? A. In what capacity? Q. In connection with the road camp. A. I think it was the last part of last March. Q. March, 1911? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did you quit? A. The 13th day of February.

S. P. Freeling: Defendant objects as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.

By the Court: Objection overruled. To which ruling of the court the defendant excepts.

A. I was arrested charged with giving the boys whisky. Q. Did you resign? A. I did not. Q. How were your connections with the road camp severed? A. The way it was commenced I presume. Q. By the same authority that placed you there? A. I don't know how it was."

We cannot indorse this method of treating a defendant.

In the case of Will Harris v. State, 132 P. 1121, decided at the last term of the court, this court endeavored to emphasize its views as to the necessity of treating a defendant fairly at every stage of his trial. See, also Thompson v. State, 132 P. 695, decided at the last term of this court. In the case of Jelts v. State, 7 Okl. Cr. 734, 123 P. 1130, this court said: "There is other prejudicial cross-examination disclosed by the record. This court has always been exceedingly liberal with the prosecuting attorneys of this state, and endeavors always to uphold every proper conviction brought here on appeal. But a prosecuting attorney should not permit his high office to be prostituted in the interest of malice or oppression. He should not be guilty or indulging in the character of examination disclosed by this record. It does not make any difference how guilty a man is, he ought to be tried in a fair and impartial manner, and according to law. Prosecuting attorneys are not charged with the duty of securing...