Porter v. State, 3629
| Decision Date | 06 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 3629,3629 |
| Citation | 440 P.2d 249 |
| Parties | Tony PORTER, Appellant (Defendant below), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Robert L. Duncan, Cheyenne, for appellant.
James E. Barrett, Atty. Gen., Lynn R. Garrett, Deputy Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee.
Before HARNSBERGER, C. J., and GRAY, McINTYRE and PARKER, JJ.
Defendant was charged under § 6-70, subd. B, W.S.1957 (Cum.Supp.1967), and found guilty by a jury of assault and battery with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to a term of one to two years in the penitentiary and brings this appeal, charging that prejudicial error resulted from the erroneous admission of evidence concerning irrelevant collateral matters. In so doing, he concedes that no single part of the irrelevant evidence would have constituted reversible error but insists that the cumulative effect of the various errors prejudiced him in the eyes of the jury.
There is no challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, which although conflicting in certain aspects, discloses an altercation between the defendant and Buffington, his father-in-law, in which according to certain testimony defendant pulled the trigger of his pistol, although it did not fire, and struck Buffington several times on the head with the pistol.
Directing our attention to the aspects of the trial charged as error, we note that Buffington in responding to a question as to the events leading up to the altercation said, 'Well, I had quit working and went in the house and my daughter was there and she was quite concerned about paying off a check that Mr. Porter had written.' An objection was sustained to the question, which, we should note, had made no reference to the fact that the check was bad. Later, on direct examination when the witness was asked, 'Did you take your daughter someplace?' he responded, 'I was going to take her to pay this bad check,' at which time counsel made no objection. Therefore, up to that point in the record little basis exists for defendant's criticism. On cross-examination defendant's own counsel demanded to know of the father-in-law why he had had disputes with Porter, whereupon there was a statement by the witness concerning defendant's having written some bad checks. Subsequently he was asked, 'Do you know of any convictions?' His response to defense counsel was, 'No, because he made the checks good apparently.'
Turning to the alleged impropriety of referring to defendant's child being in custody of the welfare, we observe that defendant on cross-examination was asked, 'Does he (Tony Porter, Jr.) live with you?' The voluntary response was, 'Not at the present time, he is in the custody of the Laramie County Welfare.' The matter was not challenged and no objection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haworth v. State
...the same as any other witness and the latitude of cross-examination is largely within the discretion of the court. Porter v. State, Wyo., 440 P.2d 249, 250 (1968). Cross-examination of a witness is not, however, without its limitations. When cross-examination is not confined to matters test......
-
Proffit v. State, S-07-0257.
...like any other witness. Gist v. State, 766 P.2d 1149, 1152-53 (Wyo.1988); MacLaird v. State, 718 P.2d 41, 47 (Wyo. 1986); Porter v. State, 440 P.2d 249, 250 (Wyo.1968). In Beaugureau [v. State, 2002 WY 160, 56 P.3d 626 (Wyo.2002)], however, we observed that there was a limit to the cross-ex......
-
Armstrong v. State
...latitude of cross-examination is largely within the discretion of the trial court. Roby v. State, 587 P.2d 641 (Wyo.1978); Porter v. State, 440 P.2d 249 (Wyo.1968). Armstrong claimed he fired the fatal shot to stop Anastos from beating him again. The State was entitled to refute Armstrong's......
-
Roby v. State
...the same as any other witness and the latitude of cross-examination is largely within the discretion of the court. Porter v. State, Wyo., 440 P.2d 249, 250 (1968). Cross-examination of a witness is not, however, without its limitations. When cross-examination is not confined to matters test......