State v. Webb

Citations

• 6 Idaho 428
• 55 P. 892
• 1899 Ida. LEXIS 3

Syllabus

<p>Indictment. — Objections to indictment considered and overruled.</p> <p>Robbery — Cross-Examination.—In the trial of a criminal action, as in this case a charge of robbery, the defendant should be permitted, upon cross-examination of prosecuting witness, to interrogate such witness as to any matters connected with the transaction.</p> <p>Evidence. — Where it appeared from the evidence that the defendant, the prosecuting witness, and others, had been together drinking from 10 o’clock in the evening until 5 o’clock in the morning, when the robbery was alleged to have taken place, the prosecution upon the trial having confined, their examination of the prosecuting witness to the first meeting of said witness, and the defendant, and to the occurrences at the time of the alleged robbery, leaving an interim of some seven hours, during which it seems the parties were continually together, unexplained. It was error to refuse to permit the defense to interrogate the prosecuting witness, as to his acts and whereabouts during such interim.</p> <p>instructions. — Where instructions are conflicting and irreconcilable they are erroneous.</p> <p>Alibi — Burden of Establishing. — Where a defendant relies upon the defense of an alibi, the burden of establishing such defense is upon the defendant, and if the defendant succeeds, by competent evidence, in establishing a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to his presence at the time and place when and where the offense was committed, when the committing of the offense by him made his presence imperative, he is entitled to an acquittal. The character and extent of the evidence requisite to create auch doubt is matter for the jury.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the court.)</p>