The Mankato free press., 1920-07-23
GRANTED new HEARING
SUPREME COURT ACTS IN
THE SANDQULST CASE
HANDED OUT REVERSAL
Opinion OnTrial and Procedure
Written BY Commits
sioner Lees
From Fridays Daily.

From Fridays Daily.
Without reservation the Minnesota
state supreme court has granted a
new trial in the case or the State or
| Minnesota, respondent, VS.. +. E. Sand
quist, appellant. The syllabus fol-
| lows:
One. A defendant charged with
the crime of carnal knowledge or a
| female under the age OF consent Is
entitled to much latitude in his cross
examination of the prosecutrix, put
she ought not to be compelled to
give the details of the act to any
greater extent than is reasonably
necessary, and it is largely within
the discretion of the trial court to
place limits upon her cross exami-
nation on that subject.
Two. It Is within the discretion of
the trial Judge to question witness,
and ordinarily error cannot be pre-
dicted upon his doing so. AS a rule
the examination of a witness should
be conducted by counsel and only
under exceptional conditions is the
judge justified in conducting an ex-
| tended examination.
Three. The presiding Judge
should not leave the bench and go
upon the witness stand to give tes-
timony during the trial Of case be-
| fore him. Under the circumstances
stated in the opinion the substantial
rights of the defendant were preju-
diced by the trial judges testimony
and its effect was not removed by
the statement made preliminary to
the giving thereof or by the change
to the jury.
Reversed.
The opinion of the court follows: :.
This Is an appeal from a judgment
entered upon the conviction Of the
defendant of the crime of carnal
knowledge of female under the age
of eighteen years.
Defendant asks for a reversal on
several grounds. Only three need
be considered; the first, that he was
unduly restricted in his cross -exami-
nation of the girl; the second, that
the courts examination of defend
ants witness Lillygren was prejudi
cial to him; the third. that by call
ing the clerk of court as witness
and examining him and then leaving
the hench and taking the witness
himself. the trial judge committed
error prejudicial to defendants sub
stantial rights.
One A defendant charged with
an offense of this nature is entitled
to much latitude in his cross ex-
animation of the prosecutrix, for the
accusation is easily made and the
effect of her testimony is hard to
overcome. State v. Connolly. 81 MINI.
1872; State v. Trocke, 127 MINI, 485,
although as general rule it is large
ly within the discretion of the trial
court to place limits upon the cross
examination But the prosecutrix
ought not to be compelled to give the
details of the act to any greater ex-
tent than is reasonably necessary.
Questions asked to obtain informa-
ton, embarrassing to her and rot
! necessary to aid the jury in deter
mining the guilt Of innocence of the
defendant, should not be permitted
We are not prepared to say that the
court abused it's discretion in limit
ing the cross examination as it did,
hut we do think that defendant was
given him and, since the judgment
must be reversed on other grounds
more should be allowed him when
the case is tried again.
Two. Lillygren was a life insurance
solicitor at Mankato and had previ-
ously been a travelling salesman.
After the crime is alleged to have
teen committed he visited the girl
and her mother and obtained from
each of them an affidavit. In her
affidavit, the girl exonerated the de-
fendant and stated that the testimony
at the preliminary hearing was not
true. Lllygren was called as a wit
ness to testify to what was said and
done when he obtained these affida-
Wits. The trial Judge then question
| ed him at some length as TO the ma
ture Of his business. and finally
wound up tW asking him this ques-
tion (referring to his previous oc-
cupation): @. That was a talking
trade also. was it? A. Yes. Court.
That is all. Mr.. Regan. Give us an
exception to the examination of this
witness by the court upon the ground
interest of the defendant" It is ar
eued that an inference which the
jury might draw from the courts
questioning of the witness was that
Lillygren had employed the arts Of
a life insurance solicitor and travel
| ing salesman in persuading the girl
to sign the affidavit; that he had
| talked her into it, and that the state
ments contained in the affidavit
should not be credited
1t is within TIE discretion of the
tr1al JuQge 10 question Witness anu
| it is not usual to have exceptions
taken to his doing so, and ordinarily
a court of review will not scrutinize
| his conduct in this respect very
closely. Wheeler v. Wallace, So
! MINI. 355. The exercise of this
! power If the questions are directed
| to the vital issues In the case, may
be of serious consequence to the de-
fendant in a criminal prosecution.
In Dunn v. People, 172 ILL.,. 5S2, 1t was
said, that it is difficult for a presid-
| ing judge so to conduct the exami
nation of a witness that nothing in
the tone of the voice, the play Of the
features, the manner of framing or
propounding the questions, or the
course of the investigation pursued
in the examination, will indicate to
the jury the trend of the judges
mind. 1t was also said, that the ex-
animation of the witness is the more
appropriate function of counsel, and
that the instances are rare and the
conditions exceptional that will justi-
fly the Judge in conducting an extend
| ed examination Of a witness. Simf-