State v. Krantz

• Decision Date: 18 August 1927
• Docket Number: No. 5339.,5339.
• Citation: 215 N.W. 157,55 N.D. 683
• Parties: STATE v. KRANTZ.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

55 N.D. 683

215 N.W. 157

STATE

v.KRANTZ.

No. 5339.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Aug. 18, 1927.

Syllabus by the Court.

The state has the right, on cross-examination, to show the nature of the relations existing between a witness and the accused, so far as their relations might affect the testimony of the witness, even though it may reflect on the defendant to his prejudice in the minds of the jurors, and such evidence can only be considered for the purpose of determining the credibility of the witness.

Only errors of law, specified as such in a motion for a new trial, may be considered on appeal.

Appeal from District Court, Ward County; Geo. H. Moellring, Judge.

Carl Krantz was convicted of rape in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.L. J. Palda, Jr., C. E. Brace, and Robert W. Palda, all of Minot, for appellant.

Geo. F. Shafer, Atty. Gen., H. E. Johnson, State's Atty., and E. R. Sinkler, Sp. Prosecutor, both of Minot, for the State.

BURKE, J.

The defendant was convicted of rape in the second degree at the December, 1926, term of court in Ward county, and the defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial.

[1] On the motion for a new trial the defendant claimed that the court erred in overruling an objection to questions asked by the state, on the cross-examination of Anna Anderson, a witness for the defendant, concerning her relations with the defendant. It was proper for the state, on the cross-examination of this witness, to show the personal relations between the witness and the defendant. She was his witness, and, as stated in the case of State v. McGahey, 3 N. D. 293, 55 N. W. 753:

“The state has the right to show the relations existing between the witness and the party at whose instance, and presumably in whose interest, she was testifying.” “It had the right to expose to the jury every motive and desire of the witness that might naturally and reasonably be supposed to produce that bias that would affect the character of her testimony.”

The purpose of such evidence is to discredit the witness, and it can be used for that purpose only, and there was no error in its admission.

There was a motion to dismiss for want of evidence, a motion to advise a verdict, a claim that the verdict is against the law and that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, all of which is urged as grounds for a new trial. We have read the record carefully, and are of the opinion that there is evidence to...