Court Opinion

ID: 9808267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:31:53.713953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:33.475603
License: Public Domain

*533Clare, J.,
concurring. Though a Judge may think he has fully charged the contentions of both sides, when correct prayers for instruction are asked by either, it must rest in his sound discretion whether to give them or take the risk of their having been substantially given already in the charge. If the charges in themselves are correct, he is not forced to refuse them because he may think they have been already given, and thus subject the public to the expense of a new trial, if (as precedents show) ingenious counsel can find that every point therein made was not given in the main charge. Here, the Judge gave every charge asked by defendant (save one, which was properly refused), though he had given substantially his prayers in the main charge. The fact that the State could not appeal from errors against the State, properly did not prevent him from showing equal liberality in giving instructions asked by its representative.
I think, however, there was error in those instructions in the two particulars pointed out in the opinion of the Court, and concur in the result on that ground alone.