El Nuevo mexicano., 1916-09-28
Syllabus Of Decision
In Pruett Case

Following is the opinion handed
down BY the state supreme court Sat
urday in the case Of State OF New
Mexico, appellee, VS.. James g. Pruett,
appellant. No. 1s45. Appeal from the
district court Of Union county.
Appellant shot and killed one Ciar-
ence Cheek, on October IL 1914. He
was indicted for murder on March 5,
1916, and thereupon entered a plea OF
not guilty. The case was set down
for trial for March IL, but the trial
did not begin until March 10. 1915.
The appellant was convicted of volun-
tary granddaughter and sentenced 10
the ~penitentiary for a term Of not less
than eight 0 more than 10 years.
Syllabus BY the Court
4. Motion for a continuance is
addressed to the sound discretion oil
the trial court which win not ordi-
nariiy be disturbed, especially in the
absence Of injury to the moving
party.
2. The admission Of an item OF
evidence which is immateriaI and
which. technically, Is inadmissible,
where it in no way reflects upon the
guilt or innocence of the defendant,
and is consequently not preiudicial to
him, is not sufficient cause to reverse
a Judgment.
8. Evidence of the communication
to the deceased Of a threat of the de-
PENDANT against him, IS relevant,
where, as In this case, the evidence
for the prosecution as to the actual
occurrences at the time of the homi-
eide is entirely circumstantiaa, and
where the action of the deceased, un-
der the circumstances, was to be de-
termined without the aid or direct
proof, except as developed by the tes-
timopy Of the defendant.
Y, Any witness may express an
opinion, upon non-technical subject
based upon data which he has observ-
ed, when it is impossible by word, or
mouth or gesture to reproduce the
data before a jury so that the jury
may intelligently draw the differences
therefrom which the witness has
drawn. The principle applies to opins
ions in regard to knee prints Of q
man.
Evidence OF a meeting Of wit
nesses TOR the prosecution to Or
ganiEe q mob to hang the defendant,
il 1t establishes such meeting, is adj
missible To show bias and prejudice
OF such witness. But where such
fails to show such meeting. it was
eerrect for the court to strike ii out
on motion Of the prosecution.
6. Evidence that the deceased
knew he would meet the defendant
Of the road at q certain place and
that he went there armed is material
and competent in a case like the pres
emit as rejecting upon the state Of
mind and probable conduct of the de-
ceased when he met the defendant.
z, The defense put upon the stand
2 witness, Silas Crook, who testified.
TO the circumstances Of the first diff
between the defendant and
the deceased, occurring about one
week before the homicide. He was
asked on CROSS examination whether,
on the next day, be had not told n
Walter Hem that the wife Of deceas-
ed would be a widow within a week.
On rehuttal, the prosecution was per
to prove by the witness Hern.
the witness Crook, had made
such statement. The evidence is held
to be ihadmissibie from any stand
point, and to be highly nrejudicial to
the defendant, requiring q reversal of
the case
Cause reversed. Opinion BY Jus
lice Parker Justice Hanna concur
ring. Chief Justice Roberts being alb
sent did not participate.