The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1886-12-24
TrGE wMKRRRouK.


The main errors assigned are Firl
the admission of The dying declaration,
Of the party which, be Is alleged 10 have
murdered second, permitting improp-
Or questions to be asked the appeIIsn,
when on tho witness stand Ia bis own
behalf, and compelling him to answer
them third, erroneous instructions
giyoa by tho Court 20 the jury In re-
gard to the manner Of their delibera-
tiona, upon the necessity Of their agree-
ing upon verdict aud, fourth, error
Of the Court 10 overriding csrtAin
challenges made for cause TO certain Of
the jurors drawn to try the appellant
upon the charge.
As 10 the trst point, thia character
Of testimony bas been long regarded a.
competent, and has been universally
admitted ninoe long before the adoption
Of the constitution. The consultation
does not mean that The accused shall
have ths right to meet the witness face
10 face.
Tho overruling Of certain of sppell--
ants challenges to jurors called TO try
the case Il another question left largely
to the disOrstion Of tho presiding Judge
At the trial. Il does not necessarily
follow that because men read and arc
Informed Of the current evensa Of the
day they are disqualified to act a.
jurors. The Court onght not to re-
verse judgment urOn such grounds
unless evidence Of the incompetency Of
the jurors ID clearly shown.
Is To tho third point, Il Was proper
for tho Court to instruct the jury a. to
their duty In agreeing upon q verdict,
nor should the remark that they should
be kept together until they 80 agreed
Do constructed a. any determination TO
keep thom together until they had
sgrsed, or an Indication 3hat the case
ia tbe mind Of the Court vas 90 plain
that they would not be Justified IN fall
ing 70 agree.
The lasE ground error Involves the
right Of the Attorney fos ) ale 70 tx-
amine lbe appellant while IN The stand
a. witness. This i Ghe most serious
question in the ease BY Ear. Il appears.
that duriag Saunders cross-examination
the States Attorney asked him the
fallswlng questions 'Dsd y5a not
XIII 4 nnna sa ssxzs UefOre consss.s ks-4s,
"How often have ,oa les without Il
referring 70 the Pisto ~ihin the last
six mouths % "WaA il not true that
rbea At Corvallis You were At target
Practice most of the time g'' "Yon arc
a true ,hot - 70 each OF watch ques-
tions the appellants counsel objected
on the ground that il was improper, i'm
material, incompetent. and not cross
examination. The court overruled the
objections and required appellant q
answer. If the questions were improp-
tho error was = serious one, and "
have no doubt of their impropriety
The ross-examinstion of . defendeni
sestifying IN bis own behalf cAnnot ex-
tend oyer the entire issue,as II he wer'
IN ordinary witness. think il va
entirely improper to permit such ia-
quiriss 10 be Eaade, anl for that rsAs,1
that judgment of conviction should b
reversed AID new trial ordered.
and here il The substance Of Lprd
opinion, ,and may ths god Lord delise
US from many snoh in our C,arps 9
Justice. Read II. and pick ont III
flimsy excuse
The question is whether Our statni
6xes Limitation to the cross-examini
: tion Of defendsns when he yoluntaril
takes the witness stand in bis own b
halF that does not exist il the case |
, other witnesses. Our statute provide
that when the party accused offers hiu
self as q witness IN his own behalf,
shall be deemed TO have given the pio
ecution right to cross-examins hi
I upon al the facts TO which be has te
b tilted tending TO his conviction or &C
) qnittal. Does this allow the accuse
: when q witness IL bis own behalf, 70
!, croas-examined on matters not releval
4 to the issue, for the purpose Of Affects
. his crodibility From the necessity
]. the case, II il difficult, perhaps imposi
. BILE, to lay down any precise or deani
10 rule fixing lho limits of anch cross-e'
+. amiuation. Necessarily i mist be 4
d 10 the sound discretion Of tho trl
a court, subject only 70 review iar
T. abuse. The general rule II respect
% any witness IL CROSS examination
that be MI, be oross-examiacd as
any facts or circumstances testified
y by him oo bis direct examination, q
. personally have leen Inclined totbi
g that our statute was but mere rsatIirl
% alton Of this rule, as to the acensed,a .
= that when be voluntality took the Y
=. ness stand he subjected himself 70 t
= same tests as are applied to any oil