State v. Hakon

• Decision Date: 08 December 1910
• Citation: 21 N.D. 133,129 N.W. 234
• Parties: STATE v. HAKON et al.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

21 N.D. 133

129 N.W. 234

STATE

v.HAKON et al.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Dec. 8, 1910.

Syllabus by the Court.

It is discretionary with trial courts whether or not all witnesses shall be excluded from the courtroom during the trial.

Where the information follows the language of the statute making it a crime to willfully poison domestic animals, and it further designates the animal poisoned as a horse, and states the ownership thereof, no further description of the horse is necessary.

Whether a motion to make an information more definite may ever be granted as a matter of right, not determined, but if permissible, there was no abuse of discretion in denying such motion in this case.

The rule on cross-examination of witnesses in criminal cases is that a wide latitude is permitted as to the motives and feelings of such witnesses towards defendants, and it is prejudicial error to refuse to permit any cross-examination on those matters.

It is error to sustain an objection to a question on the cross-examination of a complaining witness, as to whether he had offered a bribe to a person, if he would appear and testify as to certain matters against the defendants.

It is not permissible to prove another and independent offense against the defendants, on the ground that it shows a motive for the commission of the crime charged, unless such proof fairly and reasonably tends to show such motive.

It is error to admit proof of acts and declarations of third persons not in the presence of the defendants, unless a conspiracy has been shown between the persons making such declarations or doing such acts and the defendants, and that such acts or declarations were made or done in furtherance of the objects of the conspiracy.

Where the information simply charges malicious and felonious administering of poisons to domestic animals, it is error, in view of the provisions of the statute, to show the poisoning of such animals by exposing poison with intent that it shall be taken by them.

Appeal from District Court, Ward County; Goss, J.

Maxim Hakon and others were convicted of maliciously poisoning horses, and appeal. Reversed.F. B. Lambert, for appellants. Dudley L. Nash, State's Atty., Andrew Miller, Atty. Gen., and Alfred Zuger and C. L. Young, Ass't Attys. Gen., for the State.

MORGAN, C. J.

The defendants were informed against for the offense of willfully poisoning domestic animals, and the charging part of the information is as follows: “* * * did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously administer poison * * * to a domestic animal, to wit, a certain horse, then and there and by the means aforesaid causing the death of said horse; said horse then and there being the property of one Mike Kazema.” After arraignment, the defendants demurred to the information, on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense. This demurrer was overruled. After demurring, the defendants made a motion that the information be made more specific, so far as the description of the horse therein alleged to have been poisoned was concerned. This motion was also denied. After the jury was impaneled and sworn, the defendants objected to the introduction of any evidence under the information, for the alleged reason that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense. This objection was also overruled. The defendants excepted to all of these rulings.

The objections urged present the same question, that of the insufficiency of the description of the horse alleged to have been poisoned. The allegations of the information follow the language of the statute defining the offense, which provides that any person who willfully administers poison to any animal, the property of another is punishable by imprisonment, etc., and these allegations are sufficient in a strictly statutory offense. The kind of domestic animal is alleged, and the ownership thereof. These allegations describe the offense and cover every ingredient thereof laid down in the statute. People v. Keeley, 81 Cal. 210, 22 Pac. 593. The demand for a more specific description of the horse was properly overruled, and the demurrer, as well, inasmuch as the information contains a direct and certain statement of the offense charged. We have recently held that questions pertaining to making informations more definite and specific are matters of discretion with trial courts, and this court will not interfere with such discretion, unless manifestly abused. In this case, there was no abuse of such discretion, and no error in denying the motion, although the question whether district courts may not, under some circumstances, grant such a motion, is not decided. State v. Empting (decided at this term) 128 N. W. 1119, is followed in this case. The information charges the malicious administering of poison to the plaintiff's horses, which is sufficient as a charge, so far as administering poison is concerned.

Error is also assigned because the court made an order, before the trial, excluding all the witnesses from the courtroom during the trial, except the one under examination, but later the complaining witness was permitted to remain in the courtroom during the trial, after he had testified. Matters pertaining to the exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom during the trials are discretionary with the trial court, and there was no abuse of such discretion in this case.

The cross-examination by the defendants' attorney of the state's witnesses was restricted within very narrow limits. Many questions were objected to, and the objections sustained on the cross-examination of the complaining witness, which called for answers which might have thrown much light on the motives of this witness as to certain acts, and as to his relations and feelings towards the defendants. This is especially true of the following questions: “Q. Did you, about a month ago, offer to Jack Galamaha, 100 bushels of oats if he would appear for you as a witness in this case and testify that he saw these three defendants mixing up poison the night before the...