State v. Cray

• Decision Date: 29 April 1915
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

153 N.W. 425

31 N.D. 67

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA v. IRA CRAY

Supreme Court of North Dakota

April 29, 1915

Rehearing denied June 7, 1915.

Appeal from the District Court of Williams County, Fisk, J.

Ira Cray was convicted of the crime of grand larceny, and appeals.

Affirmed.

Middaugh Cuthbert, Smythe, & Hunt, for appellant.

The court erred in permitting rebuttal examination of the witness Borth to cover matters already testified to in the state's case in chief. Moseley v. Com. 24 Ky. L Rep. 1811, 72 N.W. 344; People v. Hillhouse, 80 Mich. 584, 45 N.E. 484; People v. Quick, 58 Mich. 32, 25 N.W. 302; Reddick v. State, 72 Miss. 1008, 16 So. 490; State v. Hunsaker, 16 Ore. 497, 19 P. 605; United States v. Gardiner, 2 Hayw. & H. 89, F. Cas. No. 15,186a; Jones, Ev. 2d ed. § 137.

Methods of examining a witness, not for impeachment, but for the sole and apparent purpose of prejudicing him in the eyes of the jury, are wholly improper and should be condemned. McDonald v. Jacobs, 77 Ala. 524; Grubey v. National Bank, 35 Ill.App. 354; Tijerina v. State, 45 Tex. Crim. Rep. 182, 74 S.W. 913; Jones, Ev. 2d ed. § 137.

No foundation was laid for the introduction in evidence of the tickets for flaxseed from the elevator, and same was wholly improper and prejudicial. Jones, Ev. 2d ed. § 843; People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229, 21 Am. Dec. 122; People v. Graham, 21 Cal. 261; People v. O'Brien, 96 Mich. 630, 56 N.W. 72; People v. Fong Ah Sing, 70 Cal. 8, 11 P. 323.

Where a general subject is entered upon in an examination in chief, the cross-examining counsel may ask any relevant question on the general subject, and is not bound to follow the line of examination pursued by the other counsel. Jones, Ev. 2d ed. § 824; Vogel v. Harris, 112 Ind. 494, 14 N.E. 385; Pye v. Bakke, 54 Minn. 107, 55 N.W. 904; Hay v. Reid, 85 Mich. 296, 48 N.W. 507; Leo Austrian & Co. v. Springer, 94 Mich. 343, 34 Am. St. Rep. 350, 54 N.W. 50; Davis v. Hays, 89 Ala. 563, 8 So. 131; Sayres v. Allen, 25 Ore. 211, 35 P. 254.

It is the general rule of law that greater latitude is allowed on motion for a new trial on the evidence in criminal than in civil cases. Summerour v. State, 112 Ga. 19, 37 S.E. 98; Williams v. State, 85 Ga. 535, 11 S.E. 859; State v. Jones, 2 Bay, 520; Gibbons v. People, 23 Ill. 518.

Where evidence against the accused is wholly circumstantial, each essential circumstance in the chain or series of circumstances relied upon to establish guilt must be independently proved to a moral certainty or beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, to the same degree of certainty as the main fact. People v. Carson, 155 Cal. 164, 99 P. 970; People v. Weber, 149 Cal. 325, 86 P. 671; State v. Dinneen, 7 Pen. (Del.) 505, 76 A. 623; Kennedy v. State, 31 Fla. 428, 12 So. 858; Sumner v. State, 5 Blackf. 579, 36 Am. Dec. 561; Dunn v. State, 166 Ind. 694; 78 N.E. 198; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 298, 52 Am. Dec. 711; People v. Vanderpool, 1 Mich. N. P. 264; People v. Aikin, 66 Mich. 460, 11 Am. St. Rep. 512, 33 N.W. 821, 7 Am. Crim. Rep. 345.

It is erroneous to instruct that it is sufficient that, after taking all the testimony together, the jury are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt. Walbridge v. State, 13 Neb. 237, 13 N.W. 209; Bradshaw v. State, 17 Neb. 147, 22 N.W. 361, 5 Am. Crim. Rep. 499; State v. Maher, 25 Nev. 465, 62 P. 236; People v. Lustig, 206 N.Y. 162, 99 N.E. 183; State v. Messimer, 75 N.C. 385; State v. Snell, 2 Ohio N. P. 55, 5 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 670; Dossett v. United States, 3 Okla. 591, 41 P. 608; State v. Glass, 5 Ore. 73; State v. Aughtry, 49 S.C. 285, 26 S.E. 619, 884, 27 S.E. 199; Lawless v. State, 4 Lea, 173; Black v. State, 1 Tex.App. 368; Hampton v. State, 1 Tex.App. 652; State v. Flanagan, 26 W.Va. 116; State v. Sheppard, 49 W.Va. 582, 39 S.E. 676; Kollock v. State, 88 Wis. 663, 60 N.W. 817; Buel v. State, 104 Wis. 132, 80 N.W. 78, 15 Am. Crim. Rep. 175.

Where a juror has made statements outside the jury room concerning the case or evidence offered therein, indicating a fixed opinion unfavorable to the losing party, or illwill toward him, it is ground for a new trial. Tomlinson v. Derby, 41 Conn. 268; Blalock v. Phillips, 38 Ga. 216; Jewsbury v. Sperry, 85 Ill. 56; Chicago City R. Co. v. Brecher, 112 Ill.App. 106; Wightman v. Butler County, 83 Iowa 691, 49 N.W. 1041; Albin Co. v. Demorest Mfg. Co. 22 Ky. L. Rep. 245, 56 S.W. 982; Nesmith v. Clinton F. Ins. Co. 8 Abb. Pr. 141; Mix v. North American Co. 209 Pa. 636, 59 A. 272; Ewers v. National Imp. Co. 63 F. 562; Pool v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 6 F. 844; Allum v. Boultbee, 2 C. L. R. 1072, 9 Exch. 738, 23 L. J. Exch. N. S. 208, 18 Jur. 406, 2 Week. Rep. 459; Svenson v. Chicago G. W. R. Co. 68 Minn. 14, 70 N.W. 795, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 183; State v. Robidou, 20 N.D. 518, 128 N.W. 1124, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 1015; Pettibone v. Phelps, 13 Conn. 445, 35 Am. Dec. 88 and cases therein cited.

A new trial will be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence only where the latter is of such a character as will probably change the result of the former trial. Heyrock v. McKenzie, 8 N.D. 601, 80 N.W. 762; Spelling, New Trials, § 221; 29 Cyc. 886; State v. DeMarias, 27 S.D. 303, 130 N.W. 782, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 154.

Evidence is not necessarily cumulative because along the same line of that given on the former trial. It may be as to a dissimilar fact. It may bring to life some new and independent truth. Grogan v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. 39 W.Va. 415, 19 S.E. 563; Cooper v. Ellis, 3 Ind.App. 142, 29 N.E. 444; Anderson v. State, 43 Conn. 514, 21 Am. Rep. 669; Waller v. Graves, 20 Conn. 305; Layman v. Minneapolis Street R. Co. 66 Minn. 452, 69 N.W. 329; Goldsworthy v. Linden, 75 Wis. 24, 43 N.W. 656; Dale v. Street, 88 Ga. 552, 15 S.E. 287; Able v. Frazier, 43 Iowa 175; Fellows v. State, 114 Ga. 233, 39 S.E. 885; Gray v. Harrison, 1 Nev. 502.

New trials are frequently granted on such ground, even though the new evidence is cumulative. Oberlander v. Fixen, 129 Cal. 690, 62 P. 254; Holmes v. Clark, 54 Ga. 303; Hupp v. McInturf, 4 Ill.App. 449; Schlencker v. Risley, 4 Ill. 483, 38 Am. Dec. 100; Cleslie v. Frerichs, 95 Iowa 83, 63 N.W. 581; White v. Nafus, 84 Iowa 350, 51 N.W. 5; Butts v. Christy, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2355, 67 S.W. 377; Mercer v. King, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 781, 42 S.W. 106; Berberich v. Louisville Bridge Co. 20 Ky. L. Rep. 467, 46 S.W. 691; Adams Oil Co. v. Stout, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 758, 41 S.W. 563; Parsons v. Lewiston, B. & B. Street R. Co. 96 Me. 503, 52 A. 1006, 12 Am. Neg. Rep. 38; Keet v. Mason, 167 Mass. 154, 45 N.E. 81; St. Paul Harvester Co. v. Faulhaber, 77 Neb. 477, 109 N.W. 762; German Nat. Bank v. Edwards, 63 Neb. 604, 88 N.W. 657; Wall v. Trainor, 16 Nev. 131; Hess v. Sloane, 47 A.D. 585, 62 N.Y.S. 666; Kring v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 45 A.D. 373, 60 N.Y.S. 1114; Keister v. Rankin, 34 A.D. 288, 54 N.Y.S. 274 (reversing 29 A.D. 539, 51 N.Y.S. 634); Vollkommer v. Nassau Electric R. Co. 23 A.D. 88, 48 N.Y.S. 372; Durant v. Philpot, 16 S.C. 116; Wilson v. Seaman, 15 S.D. 103, 87 N.W. 579; Halliday v. Lambright, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 226, 68 S.W. 712; Gilman v. Nichols, 42 Vt. 313; Hurd v. Barber, Brayton (Vt.) 170.

C. C. Converse, State's Attorney, and M. V. Boddy, Asst. State's Attorney, for respondent.

It is sufficient if, taking the testimony all together, the jury is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the state has proven each material fact charged, and that the defendant is guilty. Bradshaw v. State, 17 Neb. 147, 22 N.W. 361, 5 Am. Crim. Rep. 499; State v. Glass, 5 Ore. 73; Wightman v. Butler County, 83 Iowa 691, 49 N.W. 1014.

The granting or refusing of a motion for a new trial on the ground of misconduct of the jury, or of a juror, is largely in the discretion of the trial court, and its action will not be disturbed unless there clearly appear an abuse of discretion. State v. McDonald, 16 S.D. 78, 91 N.W. 447; State v. Baughman, 111 Iowa 71, 82 N.W. 452; 8 Enc. Ev. 975; Fuller v. Fletcher, 44 F. 34; State v. Gay, 18 Mont. 51, 44 P. 411; State v. Webb, 20 Wash. 500, 55 P. 935; People v. Hunt, 59 Cal. 430; State v. Allen, 89 Iowa 49 56 N.W. 261; Grottkau v. State, 70 Wis. 462, 36 N.W. 31.

The rule above stated also applies in connection with the action of the trial court on such motion on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The appellate court will not, as a rule, interfere with the action of the lower court, and especially where the newly discovered evidence appears to be wholly cumulative or impeaching in its character. State v. Albertson, 20 N.D. 512, 128 N.W. 1122; State v. Brandner, 21 N.D. 310, 130 N.W. 941; State v. Reilly, 25 N.D. 339, 141 N.W. 720; Heyrock v. McKenzie, 8 N.D. 601, 80 N.W. 762; Barrett v. Third Ave. R. Co. 45 N.Y. 628; Hayne, New Trial & App. § 8; Braithwaite v. Aiken, 2 N.D. 57, 49 N.W. 419; Baker v. Joseph, 16 Cal. 173; Arnold v. Skaggs, 35 Cal. 684; Nelson v. Carlson, 54 Minn. 94, 55 N.W. 821.

It is largely a matter of judicial discretion in any event. Oberlander v. Fixen, 129 Cal. 690, 62 P. 254; White v. Nafus, 84 Iowa 350, 51 N.W. 5; Layman v. Minneapolis Street R. Co. 66 Minn. 452, 69 N.W. 329; Lampsen v. Brander, 28 Minn. 526, 11 N.W. 94; Wilson v. Seaman, 15 S.D. 103, 87 N.W. 577; State v. Madigan, 66 Minn. 10, 58 N.W. 179; Re McClellan, 21 S.D. 209, 111 N.W. 540, 37 Century Dig. Columns 1113 to 1150; 29 Cyc. 799; Nicholsin v. Metcalf, 31 Mont. 276, 78 P. 483; Scott v. Chambers, Mich. , 29 N.W. 94; Gaines v. White, 1 S.D. 434, 47 N.W. 524; Grace v. McArthur, 76 Wis. 641, 45 N.W. 518; Taylor v. California Stage Co. 6 Cal. 229; Braithwaite v. Aiken, 2 N.D. 57, 49 N.W. 419; Gran v. Houston, 45 Neb. 813, 64 N.W. 245; Wherry v. Duluth, M. & N. R. Co. 64 Minn. 415, 67 N.W. 223, 12 Am. Neg. Cas. 163; Hoffine v. Ewing, 60 Neb. 729, 84 N.W. 93.

OPINION

CHRIS...