Court Opinion

ID: 9617261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:53:51.828024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:57.502240
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:
(dissenting).
I think the judgment should be affirmed. It should be noted here that if defendant and his counsel did not have sufficient time to adequately prepare for trial some showing should have been made on motion for new trial that defendant’s rights were prejudiced thereby. I concede that the time to prepare for trial was short but unless defendant was prejudiced thereby the verdict and judgment should stand. Defendant had ample time to prepare his motion' for a new trial and doubtless had *56he asked for it, would have been allowed additional time to file affidavits.
The motion for new trial does not assert as one of the grounds that defendant has new evidence which he could not with reasonable diligence have produced at the trial.
Had defendant produced affidavits from witnesses tending to show that he had a defense which he was unable to produce at the trial because of the shortness of time allowed to prepare for trial, I would be among the first to favor the granting of a new trial. But this court is not concerned with abstract rights that do not affect the result. In other words, adverse rulings must be shown to have been prejudicial before defendant can complain.
In Young v. Commonwealth, 263 Ky. 683, 93 S.W. (2d) 10, 12, the court, in speaking of a like contention, said:
“* * * and there is not a fact appearing anywhere in the record remotely indicating that defendant was prejudiced because of the matters therein complained of. Not the slightest suggestion is anywhere made that any witness or any kind or character of evidence could have been produced by a postponement of the trial to a later date, and the only time or place wherein this ground is mentioned is in brief of counsel on this appeal. ’ ’
What was said in Carson v. State, 137 Tex. C. R. 188, 128 S.W. (2d) 1182, 1183, fits this case. The court there said:
“He [defendant] does not even claim that he had any defense or any witnesses by whom he could establish the same.
1 ‘ Consequently, the giving of further time to interrogate witnesses when he had none, and to prepare a defense which he did not have, would not have been of any avail to him.” To-the same general effect is Jones v. State, 205 Ark. 806, 171 S.W. (2d) 298.
In this state the principle of law is embodied in our statute, R.C.M. 1947, section 94-8207, which reads: “After hearing the appeal, the court must give judgment without regard to technical errors or defects, or to exceptions, which do not affect *57the substantial rights of the parties.” And this court has announced the rule to be that “ ‘errors not substantially prejudicing accused are not available as grounds for reversal’.” State v. Allison, 122 Mont. 120, 199 Pac. (2d) 279, 293.
I think the court properly denied the motion for new trial and that the judgment should stand.