Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/339

 remove the inference left by the cross-examination. This is one of the most important purposes for which a redirect examination is allowed. Schaser v. State, 36 Wis. 429; State v. Hopkins, 50 Vt. 316; People v. Smallman, 55 Cal. 185. The fact that the answer to the question called out a narrative of certain matters touching former conduct of plaintiff in error and his relations with Mrs. Hill, that might prejudice him in the eyes of the jury, cannot change the rule of law. Plaintiff in error moved to strike out a certain portion of the answer to the foregoing question as not responsive, and the court made no ruling. This is assigned as error. This failure of the court to make a ruling was probably equivalent to a denial of the request, but there was no prejudicial error. True, the language was not strictly responsive, but it had no element of prejudice in it. The witness stated that plaintiff in error was at one time in the habit of going to his room late at night, changing his clothes, and going out again. This act is entirely consistent with innocence and good character. We would not depart, particularly in a criminal case, from the rule which requires reversal in every case where evidence is improperly admitted, unless it conclusively appears that such error was innoxious,—that it not only might not, but could not, be prejudicial to the party against whom it was offered; but we feel bound to say in this case that such harmless language could not prejudice the minds of jurymen of average intelligence.

The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th assignments of error present in different forms the same question discussed under the 1st, and require no separate discussion. The 9th and 10th assignments are identical in principle. Certain questions were asked the witness Hill on his redirect examination, and objections thereto overruled. After the witness had answered, motions were made to strike opt the answers, or parts thereof, as not responsive, and as immaterial. These motions were sustained, but the court, neither at the time nor in the general charge, cautioned the jury to disregard such testimony. The questions were proper, but a willing witness dragged in incompetent and irresponsive matter