Court Opinion

ID: 9528403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:40:48.274618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:49.874677
License: Public Domain

HOUSER, J., Dissenting.
I dissent.
By respective rulings in a host of adjudicated cases in this state, in proper circumstances a defendant is entitled as a matter of law and common justice to have a separate instruction given to the jury respecting his “defense” of alibi. And the same situation prevails with respect to the cautionary instruction regarding the testimony of the prosecuting witness in cases of the instant character. To rule herein that the refusal by the trial court to give such instructions, for the asserted reason that such refusal did no prejudicial harm to the defendant, simply means that this court is usurping the functions of the jury,—and amounts to a declaration that, although erroneous, trial courts may, with impunity, disregard the substantial rights of a defendant and refuse him a fair trial, especially in so-called “sex-perversion” cases.