Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/334

 Cross-examination—Witness—Criminal Relations with Defendant.

The state has the right, on cross-examination, to show the nature of the relations existing between the witness and the accused, so far as their relations are such as would create a bias on the part of the witness that might reasonably be supposed to affect his testimony, and this rule cannot be changed by the fact that these relations may be such as to-prejudice the accused in the minds of the jury.

Request Refused When Covered by General Charge.

It is not error to refuse an instruction requested that correctly states the law, and is applicable to the case, when the court, in its general charge, has fully and specifically covered the same points.

Error to District Court, Grand Forks County; Templeton, J.

Arthur McGahey was convicted of shooting at another with intent to kill, and brings error.

Affirmed.

John M. Cochrane, for plaintiff in error.

Failure of the court to rule on objections of defendant, when the objections were properly made—was error. Elliott. Ap. Pro. § 727; Conning v. Woodin, 8 N. W. Rep. 572. The re-examination of complaining witness as to cause of animosity between himself and defendant, was prejudicial error. 1 Thomp. on Trials, § 484; Schaser v. State, 36 Wis. 433, 11 Alb. Law Jr. 224. Questions assuming facts not in evidence were improperly allowed. Cornwell v. Cogwin, 17 N.Y. Sup. 299; Peo. v. Cahoon, 50 N. W. Rep. 384; State v. Smith, 49 Conn. 376; People v. Mather, 21 Am. Dec. 122. The conversations between complainant and his wife in the absence of defendant were improperly admitted. Barbee v. State, 4.8. W. Rep. 584; Taylor v. State, 11 S. W. Rep. 462; Maines v. State, 5 S. W. Rep. 123; Tyler v. State, 11 Tex. App. 388; Washington v. State, 17 Tex. App. 197; Favors v. State, 20 Tex. App. 155. The court having admitted irrelevant testimony over objection of counscl—should upon striking the same out thereafter have instructed the jury to disregard such testimony even without being specially requested so to do. 2 Thomp. on Trials § 2339; Veo. v. Peo. 49 II. 412; Peo. v. Wheeler, 60 Cal. 589. The swearing of William Brittan for the state—his name not