Sparks v. Territory of Oklahoma

Citations

• 146 F. 371
• 76 C.C.A. 594
• 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4108

Syllabus

<p>1. Lakceny — Evidence—Relevancy—Facts—Decision.</p> <p>Upon a trial for larceny, the question was whether the defendant stole some cattle or ¡bought them of one Read without notice that they had been stolen. There was evidence which tended to show that the defendant paid Read for the cattle $250 in currency, and gave him a draft for $710 on a commission company, payable to Read’s arder, and that the iat-ter sent the draft to the company in a letter, wherein he directed them to place its proceeds in a certain bank to his credit. The territory produced three bankers, who testified, oyer the defendant’s objection that their testimony was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, that there was no method known to banking institutions whereby such a draft could be paid without the indorsement of the payee. Held, this evidence was irrelevant and immaterial, and its admission was error.</p> <p>2. Criminal Law — Evidence—Admission op Immaterial or Irrelevant Testimony Fatal.</p> <p>The admission of irrelevant or immaterial evidence is a fatal eiror, because it tends to withdraw the attention of the jury from the actual issues in the case, to lead them to decide it upon extraneous questions, and thus to violate the right of the parties to a trial of the case upon the law and evidence applicable to the real issues it involves, and upon those only.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 15, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, § 3137.]</p> <p>3. Same — Evidence—General Objection, When Available.</p> <p>The general objection that evidence is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial is sufficient when the reason for the objection is readily discernible. But where the ground of the objection is not suggested thereby, it will not avail in an appellate court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, §| 1633-1637.]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>