Court Opinion

ID: 9824785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:24:34.139623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:32.783127
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Behearing.
Since the filing of the opinion affirming this case, defendant has filed a petition for rehearing in which it is earnestly contended that the cross-examination of defendant as to his connection with the liquor business is prejudicial error. The state in the first instance had sought to show as a motive for the homicide that a state of ill will existed between defendant and deceased because of transactions between them connected with the handling of intoxicating liquor and because of a belief by defendant that deceased had stolen from him a large quantity of intoxicating liquor, and there was testimony of two witnesses that a short time prior to the homicide defendant had stated to them on several occasions that deceased or deceased with another person had stolen a large quantity of whisky from him, and that, unless it was returned he would kill deceased.
Defendant on the stand denied any connection with the deceased in regard to the handling of intoxicating *321liquor, and denied that any whisky had been stolen from him. The state, for the purpose of showing motive, interest, and animus of defendant, had the right to go into this question on cross-examination of defendant, and evidence on this line was not improper. However, the cross-examination of the state went into matters not properly pertinent to this question and the asking of questions by counsel for the state concerning raids on the place of business of defendant, the purchase by him of large quantities of sugar, and sales of whisky not connected with the above transaction, but claimed to have existed between him and deceased, was improper and the defendant’s objection should have been sustained. But, since the evidence in the case shows the defendant to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the asking of such questions was not such an error as will require a reversal of this case.
The petition for rehearing is denied, and the mandate ordered issued.
EDWARDS, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.