State v. KrupinState v. Krupin
Thе judgment of'the Supreme Court will be affirmed, for the reasons given in the opinion of the Supreme Court, except in the following particulars:
1. With respect to the alleged error in refusing to strike out the answer of the witness Rulds to a certain question, the Supreme Cоurt says, in substance, that the trial court did strikе out the answer, but this, we think, is an error as to the fact. The particular questiоn was objected to on the ground of irrelevancy, and the court said, “I will allow it to stand.” Later, there was another motion to strike out a similar answer to another question, and this the cоurt struck out, but in so doing, said, “Yes, but that does not apply to the similar answer given on the examination by the prosecutor.” There was, however, no legal error because the objeсtion to the first answer went merely to thе ground of irrelevancy, and it certainly cannot be said that the testimony was irrelevant, although it may well have been incompetent as hearsay. This latter objection, however, wаs not made.
2. The other point not trеated in detail by the Supreme Court and argued here on the part of the defendant Ralph is based on the common law distinction between felоnies and misdemeanors. Ralph was а helper on the truck into which *229 the stоlen tires were loaded after they had been stolen, and the theory of the argument is that he was merely an аccessory to the crime of larceny. Conceding this for the purpоse of argument, he was a member of a party of men who received the tires after the larceny, and, as the jury found, with knowledge that they were stolen, and being present, aiding and abеtting, at that stage of the procеeding, the law is elementary that he wаs a principal. Consequently, this ground urgеd as a reason for directing an acquittal was manifestly untenable.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Trenchard, Parker, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Gardner, Yan Btjskirk, Clark, McGlennon, Kays, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.