Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1898-09-15
THE FISHER DECISION.
Text of the Opinion Delivere d
By the Supreme Court.
LEGAL DOCUMENT

4
WAS HEARD UPON A. WRIT OF
ERRoR IN THE APPELLATE
COURT.
Following Is the text OF the decision
handed down by Judge Pennewill, Of
the Supreme Court in the case Of Will
liam Fisher, defendant below, plalntn
in error vs.. the State OF Delaware,
plaintiff below. defendant in error:
Supreme Court. Adjourned June
term, September G, 1898.
Writ Of Error to the Court OF Oyer
and Terminer OF the State OF Delaware
in and for New Castle county.
Nicholson, Ch., and Pennewill and
Boyce j. j., sitting.
John p. Nields. for plaintiff In error.
Robert c. White, attorney general,
for defendant in error
Pennewill, ]. delivering the opln-
Ion OF the court:
This is the first case OF criminal
character In the history Of this state
which has been heard upon a writ OF
error in the appellate court, there hav-
Ing been no right Of review given in
such cases until the promulgation OF
the present Constitution. The provls-
ion or the Constitutionwhich confers
upon the defendant In criminal cases
the right to a writ Of error is found in
section l2 Of article 4. and Is as fol-
lows, viz: The Supreme Court shall
have jurisdiction as follows:
ITO issue upon application OF the ac-
cused, after conviction and sentence,
writs OF error to the Court OF Oyer and
| Terminer and the Court OF General Ses-
sions In all cases In which the sentence
shall be death, Imprisonment exceeding
one month, or fine exceeding one hun
dred dollars, and in such other cases as
shall be provided by law; and to deter
mine finally all matters in error In the
Judgments and proceedings OF said
Court OF Oyer and Terminer aud Court
OF General Sessions in such cases"
This case, therefore, in addition to
It's very serious nature, and it's vital
interest to the plaintiff In error, has a
further and peculiar Importance by
reason Of the fact that Il Is the first OF
the kind in the history Of the state that
has come before this court for review
and adjudication. In nothing. perhaps,
have the courts OF Delaware been more
commended in the past than the expe-
ditious hearing and disposition OF
criminal cases. IL has been a subject
OF frequent mention and favorable
comment, that while in 50 many jurie.
dictiOns criminals have often escaped
punishment because OF the ease and
, facility with which the execution OF the
judgments OF the courts were delayed
yet in this state execution has followed
60 close upon the sentence as not only
to speedily punish the guilty, but also
to create In the criminal classes a
wholesome fear OF the penalties OF the
law. But notwithstanding such POSI-
ton which our courts have hitherto
held in the matter OF criminal proceed
ure when no right OF review was given
yet II has ever seemed to many Of our
people to be consistent with reason and
justice as It certainly was with the
Constitutions or statutes OF other
states, that the defendant, In at least
all important criminal trials, should
enjoy the same rights and privileges
that have been so long accorded TO de-
PENDANTS in civil causes. Such was the
view that was taken by the framen
p OF our present Constitution and accord
i ingly in their wisdom they provided
} that the Supreme Court should have
power to issue writs Of error to the
Court OF Oyer and Terminer and the
Court OF General Sessions. But while
this power now exists, and while the
defendant Is entitled to have the pro
- ceedings in the court below carefully
: reviewed and considered, and while Il
is important that his rights should b,
carefully guarded and his Interests
fully protected, yet the appellate court
g must also have regard to the due ad
ministration OF justice and the proper
execution OF the law. II Is not every
error that will justify reversal, and 4
- Is not every mistake that may be made
in the hurry OF a trial court that viii
warrant the setting aside Of the judg
ment Of that tribunal. But such seem,
not always to have been the law, for
= Rapallo j., in an opinion delivered II
the celebrated case Of Stokes vs.. State
SO n. Y 1888, says, the refusal to ne
verse, even when the appellate cour
was satisfied that by no poesibilit,
could the error have produced injury
was an innovation upon ancient rules
g under which II was a matter OF coursl
e TO reverse when error appeared, with
out inquiring into it's materiality. Blu
whatever may have been the praetic
OF appellate courts under ancient rules
there can be no doubt as to the Law
r that governs them in this particula
J. to-day.
I'm this country It is general rul
in criminal cases that a new trial will
not be granted for the erroneous ad
, mission or rejection Of evidence, wher
1t clearly appears that the defendan
could not have been preiudiced there
by" II on the whole record II appear
t. that justice has been done. and ther
appears no substantial misdirection O
. the court by which the prisoners right
, we're injuriously affected, the court /
J. not justified in reversing the judg
ment."' when 1t appears from tn
record that the error alleged therein OF
behalf Of the appellant could hav
worked no injury to him. and coul
not have changed the result, the judg
d ment Of the court below will be ai
r flrmed."
4. The admission Of irrelevant testi