The Bemidji daily pioneer. [volume] (Bemidji, Minn.) 1904-1971, 1919-02-08
" z -tiEs y " . "a ~ .ss. .s4
NO ERRORS IN MURDER
TRIAL, sAYStTRIRuNALs
sy,. H !. II NJ N Y ]. II.

Z
s.s,s s.s ssu' 3 I'd N N I IS so'TI r.
CONTINUED from Page One)
relevancy thereof to the issues In the
case, council evidently being of the
opinion that the ruling Of the court
was right. The contention now made
by new counsel, is that the statute
prohibiting giving evidence conYersa-
tions with q deceased party or per
son (Sec. 1878 G: s. 1917 has no ap-
splication to- criminal presentations
3 that the conversation was admissible
as part Of the res gestae, and there.
fore that the ruling OF the court was
prejudicial error.
ut may be doubted whether our
statutes which prohibit giving In eyi-
dence conversations with deceased
persons has an application to crimin-
al prosecutions. AS originally en-
acted, and It appears in the statutory
revision of 1886, 1t clearly was limit
ed to civil controversies arising out
of contract" s4g&..sr... -. #Ha.14
Then follows citation OF sections in
question, also cases, and continues:
Exclusion No Error. #@
''But conceding for the purpose OF
the case that the statute does notgap-
ply to criminal prosecutions, and that
conversation between the defendant
and Nelson was admissible as part Of
the res gestae, the ruling of the court
excluding 1t presentsS no error OF
which defendant may complain. II
by assuming and stating to the trial
court that the evidence was inadmis-
sable, ii the state objected, counsel
for defendant did not invite the Ttll-
Ing now complained Of = the cub
ject matter Of the conversation was
not shown to have any relevancy to
the issue of trial. Counsel for defend
ant undoubtedly knew to what it re-:
lated, the apurpOrt and effect thereof,
and whether it was material to the
defense and should In some way have
disclosed the same to the, court. This
otherwise advised upon. the subject.
he did not do and the court was not
The exclusion: of the conversation
was not, therefore, reversible error:
1.-THE rule that the materialfty Of
proffered evidence must be shown to
render the exclusion thereof error Is
we'll settled In this state, and applies
to criminal prosecutions as well as
civil actions. = r, ~ ~-..@$ s.
Then follows citations to show that
defendant is not shown to have been
prejudiced by the ruling
y. agSso;, M rrror 1. o.
There was, no error in the refusal
of the court to submit to the Jury
the question Of granddaughter In the
Tba 5efensa re,,ad ,non az shown
nv testimony "fhaf The fatal shot
,sos frad r., q n,nmart when ha was
man+aliW daranpad and irrespnn.
sihle . f., r.1,' =
The conrt on instrncted, the. turv;
savs ,the r.ninfon hi whicl, no obiec.
tion waa made aaxrant ref,,sal ofIra.
n,Iests Yor ir,strrrcfinY,s which: tnci,,d-
Cd one Of MAJ, slamphfer. j '"The shoot.
ING was not the result 81 passion,
aroused from fra sudden rotnbat 81
other nrovocation4 arisfns: from the
conduct az Nelson .3g3 Nntfiinr Of tht
kind waa intimatea ~ Vim n eivine
Ria testimony 10 the inrv.n
. NtTha nninion than Soas on ia an say
that An attempt Was made I'd con.
vinca fba iurv that iaftar an}arina
the stairway Nelson bIimned Henri.
nnnat,s haai gain ii ina wall cs;,ayua
his II Insa Ma sanses aiso san affi.
day,t mada ;tha hsais - his action 10,
n new tria, nresents tha case Il, an
nntire,v different gitrht And sAatIv An
consist ant with Inc srecnrd n,ada A.
tha trial :"
~. 81 .naf,a 49, j. \. st4i4fsg
. MI, Oei s oe eu,sa ~ SIX,
ea ihe Upinion .neh tei,s ~. ~ sne We
nsou.inn aa as.n, lug , stH ~
s snuo,. any -sa nc snp'. .s t an
cision states "dafandant chose a. :
defense a suddenlv deranged mind
renderinf him unconscious of hid acts
and Nv thaf his ease must he testef
in this court Ana moreover. thu an,
demos .in orr view 'of tho ,record :,
shots at: Nelson with intention t.