Skip to main content
· 10/5/1920

State v. Carabajal

Citations

  • 26 N.M. 384
  • 193 P. 406

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. The error of the district court in sustaining an objection to a question asked for the purpose of laying the foundation for impeachment is not available to the appellant, when as a matter of fact he is permitted to prove that the witness did make the contradictory statement called for in the question. P. 386</p> <p>2. The statement by the district court that he fails to see the materiality of a question • asked by the witness is not a comment upon the weight of the evidence, but is a mere statement of a legal objection to the testimony, and is unobjectionable. P. 388</p> <p>3. The trial judge has the power in his sound judicial discretion to vary the order of proof, and his action is not reviewable, except for gross abuse of discretion. P. 388</p> <p>4. Where the appellant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, he cannot make complaint of error in the instructions of the court in regard to murder. P. 392</p> <p>5. An exception to an instruction, to the effect that the same is not a full and complete statement of„the law, is indefinite, and presents no question for review in this court. P. 392</p> <p>6. An instruction upon manslaughter which omits to express to the jury that the killing must be without malice is not harmful, but, on the other hand, beneficial to the defendant, and he has no complaint thereon in this court. P. 394</p> <p>7. Instructions Nos. 10 and 14 examined, and held not to be in conflict with or repugnant to each other. P. 394</p> <p>8-11. The district court is not bound to give instructions which, even if correct, are merely cumulative, and state in another form a proposition of law already given to the jury. P. 395, 396</p> <p>12. An instruction which merely lacks scientific form, while in substance it covers the matter fully, is not objectionable; and, even if the same is not directly applicable to the facts in the case, where by no possibility it could mislead the jury, the giving of the same is harmless

Judges: Parker, Raynouds, Roberts

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.