Court Opinion

ID: 9825579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:25:38.013649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:01.208351
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant insists there was error in tihe court’s ruling in sustaining the state’s objection to his question on cross-examination of state’s witness King, when he was asked: “Did you see Armstrong and Armstrong’s sister talking in the house?” There was no error in this ruling. There is nothing in the question tending to show that the matter inquired about was part of the res gesta;. No time was mentioned, and, unless the answer sought could shed some light upon the transaction complained of, it would be inadmissible and irrelevant. It was the duty of counsel to apprise the court, or to so frame his question as to the time the alleged conversation occurred; otherwise the court could not know whether it had any bearing whatever upon the matters under inquiry. But if this was not true, and error had prevailed in the ruling complained of, this court would not predicate a reversal in the face of the overwhelming testimony which tended to show appellant by his words and acts brought op the difficulty and fought willingly and admittedly inflicted the grievous wounds on Glover, upon which this prosecution was based. It is very evident to this court that the accused was accorded a fair and impartial trial throughout, and that no adverse ruling of the trial judge erroneously affected the substantial rights of the defendant.
The application for rehearing is overruled.