The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1912-08-30

appeals, yhich announces that 1t has
no respect for precedents found Ill
the rubbish of Noah's Ark and that
it purposes to dc all in its power to
place the criminal Jurisprudence OF
their new commonwealth on the
broad and sure foundation Of reason
and justice rather Upon a technical
basis, expresses the following opln-
ion of the doctrine Of harmless error:
"All lawyers will agree that there
is such a thing as error without in
Jury. But few, if any, of them Will
admit that the doctrine of harmless
error should be applied to any oi
their cases. 1t required the passage
of over six years before membei
of this court could realize that this
doctrine had been properly applied to
one of his cases. The more we re-
fleet upon the doctrine of harmless
error the more clearly we will SEE
that it is in strict harmony with
the philosophy of the law, and that
its recognition and enforcement by
the appellate court is absolutely nee
essarv for the administration OF JUS
tice.
Justice demands that in the ad-
ministration of law its processes
should never be allowed to become
game of skill between contending
counsel. There has been entirely too
much of this in the past. 1t has re-
suited in the miscarriage of justice
in many cases, and has bred spirit
of disgust for law and contempt for
courts in the public mind. Reduced
to its last analysis, the doctrine con-
tended for by counsel, if recognized
would require this court to hold that,
where evidence is admitted during Il
trial. and upon appeal it is held that
such evidence was improperly admit
ted, n reversal of the conviction must
follow. regardless of the character
of the evidence in the prosecution
having offered the evidence as part
of its case, it is estopped from deny
ing its injurious effect.
1T appears tC us that this appli-
cation of the doctrine of estoppel TO
the state in the enforcement of its
criminal law, on account of the iS-
norarce or mistaken Judgment of one
of its servants, is technically run mad
and gone to seed. We decline to be
bound by or to follow line of auth
critics so repugnant to reason, so de-
moralizing to respect for law and so
destructive to justice. The habit OF
reversing cases upon technicalities is
a very convenient one for appellate
courts. for by so doing they can es-
cane much hard labor, and RESPONSE
bility for their decisions, for a viola
tion of some technical rule can be
found in almost every closely con-
tested case.
I'VE believe that appellate courts
should faithfully and fearlessly do
their duty and decide every question
presented with reference to the sub
stantial merits of the case in
which it ariess. In this way only
can justice be administered. isnor-
ing Justice and deciding cases upon
technicalities has not only largely
lost to the courts the confidence and
respect of the people, but it has also
greatly alarmed the profession of law
itself.
when a defendant has been prop
erly charged with an offense and
fairly tried and the evidence clearly
establishes his guilt, this court vii!
not reverse the conviction uUon any
technically or exception which did
not deprive the defendant or a sub
stantial right We can not perform
this duty without examining the en-
tire record and going over the entire
case.
1t is true that in the first instance
the jury constitutes the triers of the
case but when defendant, by appeal,
brings a case to this court and there
by invokes our judgment, We can mo-
act intelligently upon his appeal and
determine the application Of the legal
principle involved to the facts in the
case unless We carefully consider the
evidence and weigh It Just as an in